Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[NYcarbineer]

The Ninth Amendment deals with rights that existed at the time of its ratification, for example the right to own property, the right to travel within and among the states, the right to enter into contracts, and so on.

No serious Constitutional analyst even mentions the Ninth Amendment in connection with gay marriage, buggery, pornography, or any of the other plagues that Liberals have imposed on the American public through a willing, ignorant, and/or subversive court system.

So the Ninth would protect women against any law that would bar them from owning property?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

 

[martybegan]

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

If you argue that a man marrying a woman should be legally different than a woman marrying a woman,

you are arguing against gender equality, which is in fact a protected right. On that alone you lose, in principle.

not in the constitution it isn't. Show me where explicit gender equality is in the document.

Your crackpot version of the Constitution is not the version in use, which renders your crackpot constitutional claims irrelevant.

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Incorrect.

There is nothing in the text and history of the Constitution during the Foundation Era to today that supports the myth of 'strict constructionism.'

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The myth of 'strict constructionism' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum in response to Constitutional jurisprudence conservatives disapprove of for subjective, partisan, and ideological reasons, in no way reflecting the original intent of the Framing Generation.

Bullshit. You don't change a document that has the ability to be changed via a defined process without using said process. The idea the judicial review and case law can overturn items in the document, or create new ones, without using the amendment process is the twisted reasons of someone who's reverence for the concept of law stops when they disagree with the laws.

 

[martybegan]

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

 

[martybegan]

My views are of a strict constructionist, and are the intended views of the framers, your name-calling aside.

Your view of the constitution is "make crap up when I want it if it isn't in there, and ignore things that are in there if they get in my way"

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

 

[martybegan]

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then explain the Ninth Amendment.

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

 

[martybegan]

Ah, the good old ninth. While it does say rights are not limited to those found in the document, it does not say HOW that is affected. Also, how many current decisions that are in question are based on the 9th amendment?

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

 

[martybegan]

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, so the Ninth proves you wrong.

Where does the 2nd amendment say you have the right to own an AR15?

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

 

[martybegan]

again, show me which decisions were based on the 9th amendment.

It says I have the right to keep and bear arms. an AR-15 is an arm, and unless the government can come up with a strict compelling reasons for me not to own one, i't cant stop me from owning one.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah so even to strict-con like you, the 2nd amendment need not explicitly protect the AR-15, a non-existent weapon in th 18th century,

because it is reasonable for the unelected judges on the Court to interpret the generalized text of the 2nd amendment to implicitly include certain arms not explicitly mentioned?

Interesting. Go back and argue and argue with yourself on that.

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

 

[martybegan]

It's far more simpler than that. The government has no explicit reason to ban me from having an AR-15, as it is a common arm, and I have no felonies to my record, nor do I have any mental adjudication.

The word "arms" is in the document. Find me words like marriage, or abortion, or corporations have no speech rights, and you may have an inkling of a point.

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Two days after this post. Marco Rubio still a candidate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is not absolute, government may prohibit the possession of certain types of weapons:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment – as determined by the Supreme Court, not by you or your fellow ridiculous 'strict constructionists.'

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can find equal protection in the Constitution which is the same sort of generalization as is 'arms'.

Only in your mind, and only for things you support.

You're the one shifting your position based on what you support. That's why I got you to claim owning an AR-15 is a right, even though there is no explicit mention of it in the Constitution,

even though you otherwise demand explicit mentions.

arms are explicitly mentioned. an AR-15 is an arm. That is the interpretation the court is mandated to figure out, not saying you have a right to an abortion because x,y, z (and mostly because someone wanted it).

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Persons are a mention as explicit as arms.

again, you are assuming equal means something it doesn't.

I asked you to show me in the laws what equal means.

 

[martybegan]

Your inconsistency is your downfall. You at once argue that while the nd can be limited, all the stuff you want added via the 14th is OK "just because I say so".

and it isn't about being absolute, its about the government having an overwhelming burden to restrict an explicit right.

The burden is on the government when it comes to denying 'equal protection'. If a state law only allows certain people to marry certain other people,

then it's the state's burden to prove that the people deprived of the marriage right are sufficiently dissimilar to justify denying them equal protection.

You can, for example, deny a blind person a driver's license because he's blind, but you can hardly deny a woman a driver's license because she's a woman.

Actually its the burden to show the feds have standing on this over the state legislatures, which are given everything not given to the federal government, and thus the ability to define a marriage contract. What the feds can do is make sure a marriage given in one State carries over to another (full faith and credit).

They are not given the ability to define a marriage contract in a manner that violates the civil rights of one group of Americans, any more than they can write a labor law that permits hiring discrimination contrary to federal law.

The issue is you seem to think SSM is a civil right, and it isn't. Its allowed by law if a State legislature decides to modify said contract, nothing more.

States can't make unconstitutional laws.

You haven't made the case that Marriage contracts that have been in place for centuries are unconstitutional beyond "because I say so, Equal protection, hur dur durrrr."