Living Document or Not?

[Bern80]

if it is not a living document....then surely you support that black people are only 3/5....of a person

What part of the currently amendeded constitution would that be? Saying it is not a living document is not the same as saying it can not be changed. You just have to follow the rules of doing so. Next red herring please.

care to explain what YOU think the terms mean? you obviously support it changing over time, so what is your issue again?

My issue is that changing it per the rules for doing so laid out within the constitution is different than ignoring it all together. Honestly it is hard to say what the term 'living document' means. To me it's nonsense term that simply gets used by people trying rationalize what they know is unconstitutional. Seriously can anyone tell me something that is not constitutional under strict interpretation of the document, but turns into being constitutional interpreting it as a living document?

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, Yurt, you can't carry an argument so you rely on ad hom, the same as bigreb, with no more success than his at all.

Bigrebnc1775, as if any of us believe you are the toughie you act like. If the Secret Service show at your door, I bet you invite them in for lemonade. You really should get inferring that the President will be a target for assassination if he takes any particular action on any particular subject. You will get a visit if you keep that stupidity up.

 

[Yurt]

See, Yurt, you can't carry an argument so you rely on ad hom, the same as bigreb, with no more success than his at all.

Bigrebnc1775, as if any of us believe you are the toughie you act like. If the Secret Service show at your door, I bet you invite them in for lemonade. You really should get inferring that the President will be a target for assassination if he takes any particular action on any particular subject. You will get a visit if you keep that stupidity up.

didn't think you would actually abide by your own rules and debate that i'm a racist....thought so liar

 

[Yurt]

What part of the currently amendeded constitution would that be? Saying it is not a living document is not the same as saying it can not be changed. You just have to follow the rules of doing so. Next red herring please.

care to explain what YOU think the terms mean? you obviously support it changing over time, so what is your issue again?

My issue is that changing it per the rules for doing so laid out within the constitution is different than ignoring it all together. Honestly it is hard to say what the term 'living document' means. To me it's nonsense term that simply gets used by people trying rationalize what they know is unconstitutional. Seriously can anyone tell me something that is not constitutional under strict interpretation of the document, but turns into being constitutional interpreting it as a living document?

by definition and practicality, interpretation is ever changing...and some argue scotus lacks the power to review....and its been raging heavily since marbury v madison...

read up on that case for some keen insight

 

[ConHog]

"Exactly the way we do" isn't working. The President is not doing his constitutional duty by enforcing the law. Is that what you support?

If you want more enforcement, you're going to need more resources (e.g. money). And yes, I'd be fine with that.

But back to the real point: have we reached agreement that "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" is necessarily expansive enough to entail federal responsibility for apprehending and deporting illegals? Be careful how you answer because an affirmative answer will effectively agree that the Constitution is a "living" document.

Dude, as I 've shown in other threads, ICE has a budge of $4.3B a year for detention and deporting duties alone. Funding is not an issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What part of the currently amendeded constitution would that be? Saying it is not a living document is not the same as saying it can not be changed. You just have to follow the rules of doing so. Next red herring please.

care to explain what YOU think the terms mean? you obviously support it changing over time, so what is your issue again?

My issue is that changing it per the rules for doing so laid out within the constitution is different than ignoring it all together. Honestly it is hard to say what the term 'living document' means. To me it's nonsense term that simply gets used by people trying rationalize what they know is unconstitutional. Seriously can anyone tell me something that is not constitutional under strict interpretation of the document, but turns into being constitutional interpreting it as a living document?

The second the Congress authorized Hamilton's bank bill and Washington signed the bill into law is the second that this discussion of an originalist vs. interpretative constitution became nonsense.

The Constitution is what it is: a document of governance for the nation. Judicial review resides in SCOTUS, no where else. If anyone wants to debate that using the 10th Amendment as grounds, then please support the contention with evidence that the 10th somehow is relevant to the argument. Just giving us the 10th as support is nothing. Got to give something to support that assertion.

 

[ConHog]

I know that bigrebnc1775, but I wanted everyone to see what both he and you have said.

Obviously, both of you are racists, and whereas you use the n-word openly, Yurt does not. At least you are honest about being a freak, while Yurt is a closet queen racist.

How are you two doing in the basement together>

prove i'm a racist...nothing i've said is racist....

YOU however have proven you're a liar and a bigot....white pointy hats are not the sole domain of the kkk...i said it because you are a dunce

did you graduate 3rd grade? i bet this was you:

now, be a man and retract your blatent lie about me being a racist

He will do no such thing. Starkey is one step below Ravi or Zona in the throwing out the racist card department.

 

[Yurt]

See, Yurt, you can't carry an argument so you rely on ad hom, the same as bigreb, with no more success than his at all.

Bigrebnc1775, as if any of us believe you are the toughie you act like. If the Secret Service show at your door, I bet you invite them in for lemonade. You really should get inferring that the President will be a target for assassination if he takes any particular action on any particular subject. You will get a visit if you keep that stupidity up.

didn't think you would actually abide by your own rules and debate that i'm a racist....thought so liar

poor little jakey.....runs away yet again from one of his false claims

what a hypocrite, demands others support their assertions, yet he never does himself

 

[Greenbeard]

"Exactly the way we do" isn't working. The President is not doing his constitutional duty by enforcing the law. Is that what you support?

If you want more enforcement, you're going to need more resources (e.g. money). And yes, I'd be fine with that.

But back to the real point: have we reached agreement that "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" is necessarily expansive enough to entail federal responsibility for apprehending and deporting illegals? Be careful how you answer because an affirmative answer will effectively agree that the Constitution is a "living" document.

Dude, as I 've shown in other threads, ICE has a budge of $4.3B a year for detention and deporting duties alone. Funding is not an issue.

According to ICE themselves, their total budget for detention and removal operations for FY 2009 was $2,481,213,000. Meanwhile, in calendar year 2009 (no, fiscal and calendar years don't quite overlap but let's go with it) they deported 387,790 illegal aliens, so it spent a little less than $6,400 on every illegal it successfully detained and deported. The large majority of that slice of their budget goes to custody operations, which I assume would cost a fair amount of money.

How much are you saying they should be spending to detain and deport each illegal? $3,000? $500?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are projecting your failure here on the Board and threads generally. When you support your assertions, Yurt the Squirt, I will be glad to counter. But when you make a claim, silly guy, you have to support it. You don't. End of discussion. Move along.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are projecting your failure here on the Board and threads generally. When you support your assertions, Yurt the Squirt, I will be glad to counter. But when you make a claim, silly guy, you have to support it. You don't. End of discussion. Move along.

So what is your counter? where is your evidence?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has offered anything to counter except assertions, bigreb. When you make an assertion, support it with evidence. Posting the 10th Amendment with only your commentary is not evidence, son. You are not the authority in the matter, so you have to support the argument.

Why is this so hard for you far righty reactionaries to grasp.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one has offered anything to counter except assertions, bigreb. When you make an assertion, support it with evidence. Posting the 10th Amendment with only your commentary is not evidence, son. You are not the authority in the matter, so you have to support the argument.

Why is this so hard for you far righty reactionaries to grasp.

apparently I am more of an authority on the tenth amendment then you are. son
Unless you can prove that the tenth amendment has been repealed it's still written in stone. Have you proven that the tenth amendment has been repealed? Son

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's see, the RW claims the Constitution of the United States is immutable unless amended by the Congress and a supermajority of the several states. What say thee then about "militias"? It seems Article I, section 8, paragraph 15 & 16 place militias squarely under the authority of the state, unless in the service of the United States, "reserving to the States respectively the appointment of officers and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

So, are the several militias operating today by 'patriots' legal or not? If an argument is made that they are legal, are not the Crips and Bloods legal too?

 

[ConHog]

Let's see, the RW claims the Constitution of the United States is immutable unless amended by the Congress and a supermajority of the several states. What say thee then about "militias"? It seems Article I, section 8, paragraph 15 & 16 place militias squarely under the authority of the state, unless in the service of the United States, "reserving to the States respectively the appointment of officers and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

So, are the several militias operating today by 'patriots' legal or not? If an argument is made that they are legal, are not the Crips and Bloods legal too?

Yes, you fool the Crips and the Bloods ARE legal, as are the various private militias running around, they only become ILLEGAL when they commit a crime.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's see, the RW claims the Constitution of the United States is immutable unless amended by the Congress and a supermajority of the several states. What say thee then about "militias"? It seems Article I, section 8, paragraph 15 & 16 place militias squarely under the authority of the state, unless in the service of the United States, "reserving to the States respectively the appointment of officers and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

So, are the several militias operating today by 'patriots' legal or not? If an argument is made that they are legal, are not the Crips and Bloods legal too?

Yes, you fool the Crips and the Bloods ARE legal, as are the various private militias running around, they only become ILLEGAL when they commit a crime.

Really? How do you explain the San Francisco ordinance making the gathering of two or more members, within a specific region of The City, of the Bayside Mob a crime?
Or, more to the point, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) may apply to the crazies running around the woods with automatic weapons.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Let's see, the RW claims the Constitution of the United States is immutable unless amended by the Congress and a supermajority of the several states. What say thee then about "militias"? It seems Article I, section 8, paragraph 15 & 16 place militias squarely under the authority of the state, unless in the service of the United States, "reserving to the States respectively the appointment of officers and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

So, are the several militias operating today by 'patriots' legal or not? If an argument is made that they are legal, are not the Crips and Bloods legal too?

Yes, you fool the Crips and the Bloods ARE legal, as are the various private militias running around, they only become ILLEGAL when they commit a crime.

Really? How do you explain the San Francisco ordinance making the gathering of two or more members, within a specific region of The City, of the Bayside Mob a crime?
Or, more to the point, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) may apply to the crazies running around the woods with automatic weapons.

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, you fool the Crips and the Bloods ARE legal, as are the various private militias running around, they only become ILLEGAL when they commit a crime.

Really? How do you explain the San Francisco ordinance making the gathering of two or more members, within a specific region of The City, of the Bayside Mob a crime?
Or, more to the point, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) may apply to the crazies running around the woods with automatic weapons.

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

can't wait for the reply

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ah, bigreb? Jefferson is dead. The Constitution is a live, organic document expected to be useful to each generation within the context and construct of their times. You do not get to interpret authoritatively what the Constitution means. SCOTUS does that, and you have to accept that.

That said, the SCOTUS has erred in its interpretation before, isn't that right JS?

 

[Yurt]

You are projecting your failure here on the Board and threads generally. When you support your assertions, Yurt the Squirt, I will be glad to counter. But when you make a claim, silly guy, you have to support it. You don't. End of discussion. Move along.

odd...you're the one that set ground rules after i correctly noted you fail to support you assertions...those ground rules consisted of providing FACTS to support one's claim....i'm all game...

now, why don't you be honest and abide by your own ground rules....provide facts i'm a racist...if you don't, its clear that this third opportunity provided to you to do so is clear and convincing evidence you do not support your arguments or assertions as i earlier claimed.

quite simple really. ball is in your court. you're proving me case with every post you make by not proving your assertion at all. and, you're being intellectually dishonest.