The Constitutional Myths of the right

[Monk-Eye]

" Mocking The Profundity Of Disingenuous Ability "

* Rocks For Brains *

You should talk about blather! Whatever in the Hell you just wrote isn't even in English.
Aren't you the one who accused me of being a coward? I haven't received a PM telling me to name the time and the place, so I'm not a coward. And you never went to law school.
I don't have to pretend anything. You are uneducated and full of yourself. And if anyone is doing any pretending, it is you. Trying putting your sentences into some form that conveys a response.

You are not only demonstrating the characteristics of an intellectual coward , but also that of a buffoon .

* When This Is a Self Reference *

For those wanting to know what this guy's nonsensical post is about:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

So your idea of grandiose reference written by a constitutional lawyer of the highest degree is an artist , a reporter and a great public defender from florida .

Ephrat Livni - Wikipedia
Livni wrote for the Jerusalem Report[1] in Israel and for ABC News in New York.[1]
In 2007, she began working as assistant public defender in Palm Beach County, providing publicly funded defense counsel to indigents in the criminal justice system in Florida.[9][10]

Ephrat Livni
Ephrat Livni is a writer and lawyer. She has worked around the world and now reports on government and the Supreme Court from Washington, DC.

In deed , you also demonstrate the characteristics of a clown telling jokes and you will be left to interpret an additional characteristic demonstrated by yourself as one whom , when all have seen enough , continues to pile more on top .

* Elaborating The Issue *

There is a technical difference between a legal migrant and an illegal migrant with respect to " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " and it does not take a genius to recognize it .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[4] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[5]

Domicile (law) - Wikipedia
In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Mocking The Profundity Of Disingenuous Ability "

* Rocks For Brains *

You should talk about blather! Whatever in the Hell you just wrote isn't even in English.
Aren't you the one who accused me of being a coward? I haven't received a PM telling me to name the time and the place, so I'm not a coward. And you never went to law school.
I don't have to pretend anything. You are uneducated and full of yourself. And if anyone is doing any pretending, it is you. Trying putting your sentences into some form that conveys a response.

You are not only demonstrating the characteristics of an intellectual coward , but also that of a buffoon .

* When This Is a Self Reference *

For those wanting to know what this guy's nonsensical post is about:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

So your idea of grandiose reference written by a constitutional lawyer of the highest degree is an artist , a reporter and a great public defender from florida .

Ephrat Livni - Wikipedia
Livni wrote for the Jerusalem Report[1] in Israel and for ABC News in New York.[1]
In 2007, she began working as assistant public defender in Palm Beach County, providing publicly funded defense counsel to indigents in the criminal justice system in Florida.[9][10]

Ephrat Livni
Ephrat Livni is a writer and lawyer. She has worked around the world and now reports on government and the Supreme Court from Washington, DC.

In deed , you also demonstrate the characteristics of a clown telling jokes and you will be left to interpret an additional characteristic demonstrated by yourself as one whom , when all have seen enough , continues to pile more on top .

* Elaborating The Issue *

There is a technical difference between a legal migrant and an illegal migrant with respect to " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " and it does not take a genius to recognize it .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[4] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[5]

Domicile (law) - Wikipedia
In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.

You keep calling me a coward, but you're the one who lacks the balls to call me out. If anyone on this board takes you seriously they should sue their brains for non-support.

Your side has been preaching this B.S. now for a decade and half plus on the Internet. I haven't followed it much longer than that. When you have a history of judges ruling against you and a president that has not issued an Executive Order that can stand up against the court challenges, it should tell you that what you're babbling about is utter horsesh!+.

You live in this delsuional world where you deny the truth and call people names, projecting what you fear most about yourself. Now, I've told you that if you want to call me a coward, you should do it to my face. Yet you persist. Why? This is the Internet and you can call people names without having to back up what you say.

Ephrat Livni is a lawyer; you aren't. Livni is a Jewish liberal; you are an atheist right winger. So, where does that leave you? When Alan Dershowitz, another liberal Jewish lawyer, said there were no grounds to impeach Trump on, his words were manna from Heaven since it confirmed what you wanted to believe.

When ill educated sheeple start parroting the National Socialists interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it makes me want to yawn. So, basically, you like to dabble in idiocy based upon what you've heard on the Internet. You should pull your head out of your ass and try to study the subject from all sides of the political spectrum. You've been proven wrong and I understand, you're butt hurt.

I've proven you wrong and you've reacted like a little child. Your responses are juvenile and I've accepted your veiled challenge. All your fancy fonts and colors are smoke and mirrors. Your side has had over a decade and a half to convince the legislators and the courts of the rightness of your cause. You have a president that supposedly agrees with you, yet the bottom line is, you keep preaching B.S. and even with a president that pretends to believe the tripe you promote, you can't get the job done.

Your posts are in error; you lie; you call people out and don't have the balls to follow through; you project; you want to make this a personal pissing match because you lack the ability to have a civil conversation... and you lack the intelligence to ASK QUESTIONS rather than start off hurling accusations. You're in a bad shape and you are digging your own hole.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Delusional Rants About Reflections In A Mirror "

* Vacuous Mindless Blubbering All Over The Map Is Too Funny *

...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Had a double post. See next post.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Delusional Rants About Reflections In A Mirror "

* Vacuous Mindless Blubbering All Over The Map Is Too Funny *

...

So you practice your delusions in front of a mirror. What's new? Do you have a point or do you practice self deprecation as a form of entertaining yourself?

You need to get back on topic. Otherwise the mods may shut this thread down due to your personal B.S. Do you have ANYTHING related to the thread? Or are you addicted to people making an ass of you?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Should Be Closed For Pity Of Your Trite Retorts "

* Ode To A Pathetic Poser *

There is nothing else to discuss with you troll ; you issued vacuous mindless rants in the mirror , with the mental competence of the implications inferred from the image previously posted .

You repeatedly failed to address the only relevant issue , which is whether the parents of wka were legally allowed to be in the us when he was born , and to then make a discerning deduction that the technicality of law remains an unresolved point of issue for the court to address .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Should Be Closed For Pity Of Your Trite Retorts "

* Ode To A Pathetic Poser *

There is nothing else to discuss with you troll ; you issued vacuous mindless rants in the mirror , with the mental competence of the implications inferred from the image previously posted .

You repeatedly failed to address the only relevant issue , which is whether the parents of wka were legally allowed to be in the us when he was born , and to then make a discerning deduction that the technicality of law remains an unresolved point of issue for the court to address .

You have been quoted the law. The fact that you choose to post a lot of irrelevant fluff in order to cover that up won't change the truth.

Children born in the United States whose parents are undocumented are issued a birth certificate and a National Identity Card / Socialist Surveillance Number. They are citizens. No law can uncitizen them.

If the courts were to go along with Trump and say one must be the child of parents who entered the United States properly, what happens to the MILLIONS of people who are police, military, business owners, doctors, scientists, etc.? You cannot pass an ex post facto law. So, what happens?

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Unlawful U.S. Immigrants Remains an Open Question - Just Security

Monk-Eye, the courts will be looking at this issue very shortly. If you'd like to wage a real bet $10,000 minimum on the outcome, PM me.

 

[Gdjjr]

Hot dang? Intriguing, enlightening, entertaining and informative- it don't get much better folks-

 

[emilynghiem]

The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'
Garrett Epps

Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."

This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."

First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."

A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."

The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.

The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic

Hi IM2 and thanks for starting this thread on a good and valuable (or invaluable) topic.

I will go back and post "Winner" on your OP for the content and topic,
though I disagree that what you post means something negative.
I think there are good ways to interpret the Original Constitution
that do not cause the conflicts you bring up.

1. First there is nothing wrong with altering and reforming the Constitutional structures, govt and process by either
A. following the given protocols for Amendment (which doesn't negate the ORIGINAL Constitution but follows it)
B. working alongside and adding more institutions or process in ways that aren't prohibited or in conflict with the Constitution
such as structuring a facilitation and representation process between political parties or media groups that are both OUTSIDE the Constitution,
where this doesn't negate anything WITHIN the Constitution

Thus, there are ways of "altering" government that neither require abolishing the Constitution or negating/defying it,
but can either work WITHIN the given process or ALONGSIDE Constitutional Govt without conflict.

This isn't either/or.
So the ORIGINALISTS can still interpret and enforce the standards they follow "literally"
and this doesn't conflict with reforms that either use the Constitutional process or reform
institutions outside the government which still allow for governmental reforms (such as
by setting up nonprofit structures that transfer programs from govt to localized management).

2. as for what the Constitution means to different people, by facilitating agreed policies and solutions
between people and groups with different beliefs, the issues of language and interpretation of terms used
will get resolved in the process.

Fix the problems first, agree on a goal or solution, then the legal and political language will follow.

It's perfectly natural to have people and groups with different political beliefs on the meaning,
same as with other religions, and Constitutionalism (and Socialism) are both Political Religions.

Of course we are going to have differences.

So if we follow the meaning and spirit of the Constitution, then govt should not
be abused to DICTATE political religions or beliefs, but people have freedom of
choice and conscience to pursue and exercise the beliefs and affiliations which represent them.

In short, it would be in conflict with the very spirit of the Constitution to
negate, dictate, regulate or prohibit the beliefs of those who don't hold the same beliefs about the Constitution.

So neither could the originalists impose their interpretation and beliefs,
but consensus should be sought which represents the beliefs and free choice of individuals.

That's why I say apply and exercise the "freedom of speech and of the press" and the
"right to petition to redress grievances" so that consensual solutions and policies are formed,
and then the language needed to document those can be agreed upon between these groups.

We don't have to agree on beliefs in order to communicate common solutions.

I don't see this as an obstruction to have different beliefs and interpretations of Constitutional laws and process.
It's natural that every organized religion has always had at least TWO major denominations.
This is a natural development, and the process normally involves the two camps working
as complements to check and balance each other so that the policies agreed on between
them reflect the entire spectrum.

We may have to "reform" our attitudes and perception of these conflicting ideological beliefs and parties.

Instead of pitting one against the other as competing to make the other wrong and to blame for problems,
we would do better to approach this as an issue of self-representation and letting the parties represent the
beliefs of those members who consent to that representation.

By agreeing to recognize the validity and sovereignty of each party, similar to religions having the
right to their own policies paid for by their own members, then we CAN communicate and facilitate
exchange of ideas, both problems/objections and solutions/objectives, and formulate where parties
AGREE what should be common public policy.

We can have both the diversity where we fund our own agenda and beliefs,
and the unity where we AGREE on policy and on funding programs through govt.

Again, this isn't either/or.

IM2 would it help if I "blame the white male culture" for this habit of thinking that everything has to be framed
as "either/or" or "them vs. us" or "my territory turf or pack vs. yours."

What you blame as "double standard abuse of individualism" I would agree with you
if you are talking about THIS pattern of setting up one side to be wrong in order to prove another side.

If that whole pattern is what you fault when you blame "individualism on white men or white culture"
I would agree with you this is counterproductive and destructive for the purpose of political exploitation.

So if you are engaging in the same, I would ask you to refrain from
this "bad influence of white culture" to set up conflicting sides like this
in order to pimp for points and gain political leverage over others.

Please do not fall for this trap, which I am happy to blame on "white men's culture"
if that's what it takes to dissuade you from this political "divide and conquer" strategy.

 

[Gdjjr]

^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ is the epitome of Individual effort striving to leave his space a little better than he found it and creating the Greater Good naturally.

Making rules (laws) restricting others, especially for grievance, doesn't compliment redress and, in fact, creates animosity to widen a divide. The above should be mandatory reading by the District of Criminal legislative body and taught in school- not just referenced, but, discussed until ingrained in the sponges for brains.

 

[emilynghiem]

^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ is the epitome of Individual effort striving to leave his space a little better than he found it and creating the Greater Good naturally.

Making rules (laws) restricting others, especially for grievance, doesn't compliment redress and, in fact, creates animosity to widen a divide. The above should be mandatory reading by the District of Criminal legislative body and taught in school- not just referenced, but, discussed until ingrained in the sponges for brains.

Thank you Gdjjr I totally agree we need consistent Constitutional education and civic training in schools,
and I would even recommend to our Governor to make it part of citizenship. Virginia has a citizenship test
for all its citizens, and I think that could be used to set up agreed education and conflict resolution training
to help parties enforce such programs per county district and party precinct. Totally agree that we need
mass education, but in an organized way that doesn't enable disinformation propaganda, but corrects the misperceptions.

I believe this would reduce crime, abuses and corruption; empower citizens to screen out root causes of
crime and to address and correct political problems at first sign of abuse of power; and help us separate
resources so every group (especially political parties) can fund, follow and fulfill their own platforms
without forcing that on others who don't believe in the same things. We need this for full liberation,
in order to realize fully informed consent, and a "more perfect" system of democratic due process.

We will still have conflicts and errors, and still find areas of abuse, wrongs and crimes; but instead of
fighting to project blame while denying wrongdoing for political favor, we can work together to correct
these problems so that everyone benefits, especially taxpayers who deserve a break from all the debts and damages.

Thanks Gdjjr and I hope to organize people from all parties to meet, set up cross-party councils,
and get this educational outreach set up as a proposal to the Governor for protecting taxpayers' interests and beliefs
from infringement by political parties abusing federal govt to discriminate by creed, abridging rights and equal protections,
and "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" which I argue is FELONIOUS. Thus taxpayers are owed criminal restitution
for the costs and reimbursement of all tax money wasted on unconstitutional abuses that we didn't authorize or consent to.

Happy New Year to you, and let's make this one a GOOD ONE!
Yours truly, Emily

 

[Gdjjr]

Thus taxpayers are owed criminal restitution
for the costs and reimbursement of all tax money wasted on unconstitutional abuses that we didn't authorize or consent to.

This I would sign onto- everything else is too subjective, IMO. I'm open to suggestion, but, I refuse a broad group think regardless of its intent.

In order to progress humanity people have to understand one simple principle/philosophy- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- all the rules, laws and different demands exacerbate the confusion- as is said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We are living proof, and I'm not even religious. People live in hell, or heaven, depending on their Individual (often times group) perceptions which is reflected in the choices they make. Some consciously, some unconsciously. People who allow others to think for them do so because it is ingrained at an early age that an authority figure knows best for everyone, despite the evidence to the contrary. Sadly, that evidence is not recognized until later in life and it is a daunting task to accept responsibility for ones actions when authority figures seem to believe, and promote thay have the authority or power to absolve that responsibility with someone else's money or agreement by the group.

Demanding compliance is still demanding another accept what another Individual or group thinks, or acts- and typically groups change and evolve leaving behind what was intended which naturally entails disrespecting the Individuals right to choose for himself.
Nothing is easy. Nor does instant gratification work. It's taken a long, long time to reach where we are as people. It won't be fixed over night or legislatively. It's a simple mathematical equation. You can't build or rebuild near as fast as you can tear down.
Consensus requires everyone gains. Demanding it won't make it happen which is where *discussion* applies. Not more rules or laws restricting others from acting as they please. Those who make the decision to act immorally, not always illegally, and rarely is legally moral are punished accordingly- it's already against the laws of nature (and most men) to cause harm to another or take what wasn't earned. That's it. All the restrictions placed on others, usually with the blessing (rhetoric) of good intent, often as not makes criminals of those who have caused no harm to another. Result: Issue Confused more, not resolved.

 

[regent]

The Constitution has not changed but through the courts and amendments. Yet it always seems to be current and up to date. What has changed is our interpretation and needs for it to change and be up to date. One of the books I just started is on the Constitutional changes that occurred between 1877 and 1917.

 

[regent]

The Constitution has not changed but through the courts and amendments. Yet it always seems to be current and up to date. What has changed is our interpretation and needs for it to change and be up to date. One of the books I just started is on the Constitutional changes that occurred between 1877 and 1917.

Time to move on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'
Garrett Epps

Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."

This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."

First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."

A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."

The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.

The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The "power" they have is to explain the intentions of the Framers. And since they were written BY the Framers, I'd say they're accurate.

But amusingly lame attempt at a straw man.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic

True enough, the right is originalist and wants govt to have only the original enumerated powers. Left is libcommie and wants a living communist Constitution that bares no resemblance to original Constitution.

 

[BJG]

I waited for THAT

Yep and it shows you are wrong.

Now stop harassing me and accept that.

I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit

Language. Respect, show some.

 

[miketx]

I waited for THAT

Yep and it shows you are wrong.

Now stop harassing me and accept that.

I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit

Language. Respect, show some.

Why? You vermin are destroying the country.

 

[BJG]

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!

Lo and behold!! Such things aren't retroactive, moron. THAT would be against the law. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case. Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled. If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.

Moron.

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.

The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.

That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about. The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases. And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law. Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.

And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved." 1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time. Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.

Save your name calling. You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names? Fuck you.

Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws. Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order? No. So, it appears YOU would be the moron. The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court. Have you?

Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of. Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over. So stick it. Stupid slut.

Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!". You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.

I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you. The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them. Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned? No? Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.

. . . And with your "Aha! I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.

You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits. Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.

The purchasers who owned a legally manufactured product are criminals today if they still own it and the Constitution requires the government to give just compensation to the bump stock corporations.

You can keep calling me names; it just shows what a low class, filthy, lying, uneducated stupid bitch you really are. Makes you wonder if your mother had any children that lived... if so, your existence may make a good court-room argument for abortion.

I joined this forum TODAY. Most of what I have seen here is either grand-standing or vicious personal attacks. I though I was joining a forum of educated, decent adults. Apparently I was way off base.

 

[BJG]

I waited for THAT

Yep and it shows you are wrong.

Now stop harassing me and accept that.

I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit

Language. Respect, show some.

Why? You vermin are destroying the country.

Real classy. Calling the new guy vermin. I can see there's no use in continuing to post here. Y'all are some uneducated, redneck, hateful mofos. Bye.