The Constitutional Myths of the right

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by IM2, Jan 30, 2019.

  1. Deplorable Yankee
    Offline

    Deplorable Yankee Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,970
    Thanks Received:
    719
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    DIXIE
    Ratings:
    +3,752


    oh theirs a lot of us who are under no illusions as to whats been going on for a long time..
    its why we go berserker in our defense of the 2nd
    oh you better Believe we're clingin.....word mofo G

    cluebat-applied.jpg
    hahashow.jpg
    lecherous establisment scum.jpeg
     
  2. westwall
    Online

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    61,225
    Thanks Received:
    13,342
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +48,394




    Considering you aren't fluent in English, i have no idea what your google translate spewed out.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,881
    Thanks Received:
    2,312
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,487
    You can believe that clause was placed int the declaration of independence because of the native Americans, but to do so, you must delude yourself.
     
  4. ChristopherABrown'
    Offline

    ChristopherABrown' Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    26
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    BS does not communicate anything sensical.

    My trying to illicit it under these conditions has exposed a lower intelligence than I had anticipated. Or, one unconstitutional.
     
  5. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,487
    Thanks Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,199
    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.
     
  6. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,487
    Thanks Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,199
    I don't give much credibility to your source. What they want to do is apply their personal interpretation and say anything they don't like is a myth.

    I'd rather go to the source... and the father of this country disagreed with your article so much that his last words to the nation in his official capacity as Commander in Chief go like this:

    "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." George Washington, Farewell Address 1795

    Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

    That is all we needed to debunk your double talking article.
     
  7. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    41,928
    Thanks Received:
    5,909
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,285
    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?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,487
    Thanks Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,199
    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!!!

    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.

    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.
     
  9. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +160
    " Wishful Thinking Four Other Subliminal Suggestions "

    * Demographic Proportion Bias *
    A theory for affirmative action is that for government to comply with a precedence to represent indifference towards its citizen populace based upon race , participation of government partners will reflect some proportion for racial incidence , while advantages are afforded to others as small disadvantaged businesses .

    * Nature Versus Nurture Inn Ability Train Bound *

    At the core for those issues is an extremely missed perception that " Equal Protection " within us 14th amendment is analogous with " Equal Endowment " - Equal Protection From Government Versus Equal Endowment From Government .

    A significant issue to contest in the courts beginning with a federal government remanding states to fund migrant children of sojourners who are not subject to us jurisdiction for legal immigration .

    The " subject to clause " equivocates with a " subject to contract law " , and " subject to contract law " includes privileges to not establish a contract until a later time when additional criteria are met such as authorized permission , whence such an individual would a subject of us jurisdiction .

    The government has stipulated that illegal migrants are not entitled to social security for themselves ; noted , however , is that social subsistence is collected based upon caregiver income of illegal migrants , whether for anchor babies , or for lunch programs , etc . , as stipulated upon states .

    * Dumb Old Basset Hound *
    A life insurance policy at the level of social security collections would be magnanimous for those receiving the disbursement .

    * Logical Deduction *
    The constitution states that one becomes a citizen of a state and of the united states at birth ; the only thing roe v wade did was to adjudicate that after viability , a standard of parturition ( natural live birth ) became relative and from thenceforth a state may proscribe abortion in the third trimester .

    * Convincing Every One It Is Too Complicated To Be Of Concern *
    It would be nice to know where the us public stands on an entitlement of government to determine immigration policies , as the pathetic elected officials appears to be countermanding the us public at large to remain in office .

    * Legal System On The Take Playing The Circuit *
     
  10. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    41,928
    Thanks Received:
    5,909
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,285
    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.

    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.

    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.
     

Share This Page