Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The 9th doesn't say that some court can out of thin air make a right protected constitutionally.

The 9th recognizes unenumerated rights. You insist they don't exist, that ONLY those rights that are explicitly written down are protected.

That's horseshit and you know it. As when I challenge you to show me where int he constitution your 'enumeration of rights' requirement is in the constitution.....you refuse. You change the topic. You start babbling about 9mm pistols.

You know your imaginary 'requirement of enumeration of rights' doesn't exist in the Constitution. You know the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of right. Yet you continue to argue for both. All to justify the States having the power to strip people of their rights and turn those rights into crimes.

As anti-liberty, pro government power posters like yourself are prone to do.

Here is a bit of history for you. ALL rights that are explicitly protected in the constitution were voted on in some shape or form. ALL OF THEM. The ones made up by judicial hocus pocus were decided by fiat.

Here's a little history for you. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that it would be used as justification to argue that ONLY those rights in the Bill or Rights existed. Many of the founders argued that no one would be so foolish as to believe that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list, that how could the government take action against all the *other* rights held by the people when it didn't have the power to do so?

And yet here you are. With you making the *exact* argument the opponents of the Bill of Rights feared some idiot would make. The 9th amendment was a compromise, a demonstration that the rights reserved to the people were vast. And that the Bill of Rights didn't encompass them all. So of course you ignore the 9th too.

The Constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. You don't understand what rights are. You don't understand what the Constitution is. Making 'Marty citing Marty' a standard that's worse than useless.

The 14th forces the States to follow the rights given in the constitution, something you only support in part,because NYC clearly denies me my 2nd amendment rights, and you are OK with that.

The 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. And limits States when they attempt to violate the rights of federal citizens.

Making your 'you forgot the 10th amendment' argument useless gibberish. As the States don't have the power to violate the rights of citizens. As the 14th amendment makes clear.

And you know this. Yet you argue against it in favor of the States having the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and the federal government not

As anti-liberty, pro government posters like yourself are prone to do.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. You love government coercion. You despise rights. And you'll ignore any part of the constitutoin, any amendment, even the founders themselves in your quest to empower the States to strip people of their liberties and turn rights into crimes.

No thank you.

it says they can exist, it doesn't say some court can decide something is a right out of thin air. Again, all of the listed rights were at some time voted on, the "rights" you claim were never voted on, they were created out of the wishful thinking of some crackpot justices.

And again you keep mistaking federalism for authoritarianism.

Now go back to jerking off over some baker getting ruined over not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

The court doesn't decide something is a right out of thin air. The court decides that a right has been violated. You are thicker than shit.

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff? Is it because I simply don't see the need to ruin someone via government action because they don't want to bake a cake for a wedding? In that example YOU are anti-rights, pro government.

My view is government is best done as locally as possible, and constrained by the concepts of strict construction and federalism, coupled with a libertarian view on how much government should get involved in people's lives.

You are confusing my support of federalism with support of big government.

Methinks you might live comfortably at Walden Pond (a hundred or so years ago with HDT.). Of course Thoreau acted on his thinking, do you? Are you willing, or have you been jailed, for acting on your beliefs? Or are you dilettante whose expertise is mental masturbation?

 

[Ravi]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

 

[Skylar]

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The 9th doesn't say that some court can out of thin air make a right protected constitutionally.

The 9th recognizes unenumerated rights. You insist they don't exist, that ONLY those rights that are explicitly written down are protected.

That's horseshit and you know it. As when I challenge you to show me where int he constitution your 'enumeration of rights' requirement is in the constitution.....you refuse. You change the topic. You start babbling about 9mm pistols.

You know your imaginary 'requirement of enumeration of rights' doesn't exist in the Constitution. You know the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of right. Yet you continue to argue for both. All to justify the States having the power to strip people of their rights and turn those rights into crimes.

As anti-liberty, pro government power posters like yourself are prone to do.

Here is a bit of history for you. ALL rights that are explicitly protected in the constitution were voted on in some shape or form. ALL OF THEM. The ones made up by judicial hocus pocus were decided by fiat.

Here's a little history for you. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that it would be used as justification to argue that ONLY those rights in the Bill or Rights existed. Many of the founders argued that no one would be so foolish as to believe that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list, that how could the government take action against all the *other* rights held by the people when it didn't have the power to do so?

And yet here you are. With you making the *exact* argument the opponents of the Bill of Rights feared some idiot would make. The 9th amendment was a compromise, a demonstration that the rights reserved to the people were vast. And that the Bill of Rights didn't encompass them all. So of course you ignore the 9th too.

The Constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. You don't understand what rights are. You don't understand what the Constitution is. Making 'Marty citing Marty' a standard that's worse than useless.

The 14th forces the States to follow the rights given in the constitution, something you only support in part,because NYC clearly denies me my 2nd amendment rights, and you are OK with that.

The 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. And limits States when they attempt to violate the rights of federal citizens.

Making your 'you forgot the 10th amendment' argument useless gibberish. As the States don't have the power to violate the rights of citizens. As the 14th amendment makes clear.

And you know this. Yet you argue against it in favor of the States having the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and the federal government not

As anti-liberty, pro government posters like yourself are prone to do.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. You love government coercion. You despise rights. And you'll ignore any part of the constitutoin, any amendment, even the founders themselves in your quest to empower the States to strip people of their liberties and turn rights into crimes.

No thank you.

it says they can exist, it doesn't say some court can decide something is a right out of thin air.

Nonsense. The phrase 'can exist' doesn't appear anywhere in the 9th amendment. You're hallucinating again.
This is what the 9th amendment says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

It doesn't talk about a right 'can' exist. It talks ony of other rights retained by the people. Rights you insist don't exist. A nonsense turd of an idea you're polishing so hard that you've made up an 'enumeration requirement' for rights, insisting that unless a right is explicitly written down it isn't protected.

A requirement you know doesn't exist in the constitution.

Again, all of the listed rights were at some time voted on, the "rights" you claim were never voted on, they were created out of the wishful thinking of some crackpot justices.

They were interpretations of the constitution as part of the judicial power. Which the judiciary is intended by to be the interpretors of the constitution and a balance AGAINST the legislature overstepping the bounds of their authority.

Its far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

But just like you ignored the 9th amendment, the 14th amendment, and even the concept of rights themselves, you ignore the Federal Papers contradicting your claims. Insisting that Marty citing Marty knows better.

Marty citing Marty knows jack shit.

And again you keep mistaking federalism for authoritarianism.

LIMITS to government power is 'authoritarianism'?

LMFAO! Holy shit, dude. This is getting embarrassing to watch.

Rights are limits to government authority. Limits you insist that the government doesn't have to recognize, protect or be bound to. Rights that the government can flagrantly violate at its whim.

You don't know what rights are. You don't understand what the constitution is. You don't know what the judicial power is. Demonstrating yet again that Marty citing Marty is meaningless gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

 

[Ravi]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I'm just happy Marty wasn't one of the founding fathers.

 

[Skylar]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I'm just happy Marty wasn't one of the founding fathers.

In the era of the founders, he would have been a Royalist.

 

[Wry Catcher]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

55 pages in and it seems Panic has become an understatement. If I were a registered Republican, after reading some of the posts above, I would disavow any connection to those. lunatics.

 

[Skylar]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

55 pages in and it seems Panic has become an understatement. If I were a registered Republican, after reading some of the posts above, I would disavow any connection to those. lunatics.

If you were a Republican, you'd believe in the supremacy of State power over the rights of people. You'd prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th.

That you don't is why you're not a republican.

 

[Ravi]

Trump wants to force American Muslims to carry identity cards and put them in a data base. I wonder what Marty feels about that?

 

[martybegan]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I don't ignore the 9th, I find it vague and indeterminate. What it doesn't say is how other rights get to be recognized, just that they exist.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[martybegan]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I'm just happy Marty wasn't one of the founding fathers.

My views are closer to theirs than yours ever will be.

 

[Ravi]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I'm just happy Marty wasn't one of the founding fathers.

My views are closer to theirs than yours ever will be.

Right, they are applauding all the gun deaths because freedom.

 

[martybegan]

it decided what is a right out of thin air in Roe and Oberkfell. You just don't care because you agree with the end result, and you can give a rats ass about the process as long as you get what you want.

Short sighted, and stupid.

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I'm just happy Marty wasn't one of the founding fathers.

My views are closer to theirs than yours ever will be.

Right, they are applauding all the gun deaths because freedom.

They would wonder why government doesn't trust law abiding citizens to own weapons of the era that we are currently in. They would also wonder why we don't execute people who kill other people.

 

[Correll]

No, it ruled that there was no reason for the state to regulate a woman's body or a same sex marriage BECAUSE the STATE does not have that right. In other words, states were violating the rights of citizens.

Ah but if you ignore the 9th, ignore the 14th and elevate the 10th......then the States do have the power to strip its citizen of rights and turn those rights into crimes.

This Marty calls 'liberty'. While LIMITS to government authority and the preservation of rights is 'authoritarianism'.

If you listen carefully, you can hear Orwell laughing his ass off.

I'm just happy Marty wasn't one of the founding fathers.

My views are closer to theirs than yours ever will be.

Right, they are applauding all the gun deaths because freedom.

They would wonder why government doesn't trust law abiding citizens to own weapons of the era that we are currently in. They would also wonder why we don't execute people who kill other people.

Or put madmen in madhouses.