The special insanity of it all

[P@triot]

It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?

Sorry, I only read English. Try again.

Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?

View attachment 73314

Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.

It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.

So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?

And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.

See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.

However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.

Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.

 

[P@triot]

So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?

And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.

And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.

The amendment says “militia”. Sorry.

Please highlight for me where you see "militia": the right of the people to keep and bear arms

View attachment 73350

2nd amendment; US Constitution.

You mean - the same 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states "the right of the people"? Here is a perfect example (and no - I swear I did not create this). I clearly see the RIGHT here but I don't see "militia". Do you? No? Yeah....I didn't think so.

 

[P@triot]

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

By the way - forgot to mention something to you. Hillary, if she's not indicted by the F.B.I. for her serious felonies, is unelectable (she couldn't beat an unknown Kenyan with a weird name last time because her own party dislikes her so much). But should Bernie get elected and appointed anti-constitutional justices to the Supreme Court as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did, it won't make a bit of difference anyway. The American people do not comply with unconstitutional orders. You would see a Civil War and a military coup long before you would ever see the federal government confiscate the firearms of the American people. It's a simple fact. And the worst part for your side? Well....law enforcement and the military (most of them anyway - especially the one's that really matter like Special Forces) agrees 100% with us.

Here....learn about one of the finest Sheriff's the United States has ever seen. Richard Mack. He actually took on the Clinton's in the 1990's and kicked their ass from one side of this country to the other - including in the Supreme Court. I had the tremendous privilege once of attending a conference where he was the keynote speaker and outside of Thomas Jefferson himself, the U.S. Constitution has known no better friend or ardent supporter than Richard Mack (and that includes Antonin Scalia). The work he is doing around the country is amazing - rallying sheriff's to pledge to be the final line of defense between an unconstitutional federal government and the American people. You're outmanned. You're certainly outgunned. And you're trying to violate the United States Constitution. You're going to lose my dear. Whether peacefully in the courts or worse case scenario - in a civil war (God forbid), you're going to lose.

Sheriffs Call for Defying Unconstitutional Gun Control: Feds “The Greatest Threat We Face”

 

[candycorn]

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

By the way - forgot to mention something to you. Hillary, if she's not indicted by the F.B.I. for her serious felonies, is unelectable (she couldn't beat an unknown Kenyan with a weird name last time because her own party dislikes her so much). But should Bernie get elected and appointed anti-constitutional justices to the Supreme Court as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did, it won't make a bit of difference anyway. The American people do not comply with unconstitutional orders. You would see a Civil War and a military coup long before you would ever see the federal government confiscate the firearms of the American people. It's a simple fact. And the worst part for your side? Well....law enforcement and the military (most of them anyway - especially the one's that really matter like Special Forces) agrees 100% with us.

Here....learn about one of the finest Sheriff's the United States has ever seen. Richard Mack. He actually took on the Clinton's in the 1990's and kicked their ass from one side of this country to the other - including in the Supreme Court. I had the tremendous privilege once of attending a conference where he was the keynote speaker and outside of Thomas Jefferson himself, the U.S. Constitution has known no better friend or ardent supporter than Richard Mack (and that includes Antonin Scalia). The work he is doing around the country is amazing - rallying sheriff's to pledge to be the final line of defense between an unconstitutional federal government and the American people. You're outmanned. You're certainly outgunned. And you're trying to violate the United States Constitution. You're going to lose my dear. Whether peacefully in the courts or worse case scenario - in a civil war (God forbid), you're going to lose.

Sheriffs Call for Defying Unconstitutional Gun Control: Feds “The Greatest Threat We Face”

Leave it to a right wing loon to bring up civil war….

 

[candycorn]

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.

And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.

The amendment says “militia”. Sorry.

Please highlight for me where you see "militia": the right of the people to keep and bear arms

View attachment 73350

2nd amendment; US Constitution.

You mean - the same 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states "the right of the people"? Here is a perfect example (and no - I swear I did not create this). I clearly see the RIGHT here but I don't see "militia". Do you? No? Yeah....I didn't think so.

View attachment 73396

The word is in the 2nd Amendment. Try reading it sometime.

 

[candycorn]

Sorry, I only read English. Try again.

Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?

View attachment 73314

Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.

It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.

So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?

And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.

See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.

However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.

Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.

You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Now here is where you are completely wrong - for starters - Obama issues Executive Orders which usurp the U.S. Constitution.

Cite them by Name and Number. To make it easy for you, here again are the Executive Order Disposition Tables. Back up your bullshit or go pound sand, shit for brains! Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

Obama and his minions love to crow about his limited use of Executive Orders. But what he fails to mention (and his minions are far too stupid to realize) is that he instead issues "Presidential Memorandums" - as was the case for his insanely illegal "Dream Act".

He has issued over 250 "Presidential Memorandums" along side of his over 200 "Executive Orders".

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'

You can't read AND understand can you! The first paragraph of the piece you cite puts you in a clown suit, fool, and states;

President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

Executive memoranda (EM) are used to direct those agencies within the Executive Branch and are Executive actions you blithering idiot! EM's are the instrument used to inform Executive Branch. The President is EMPOWERED by the US Constitution in Article II to do just that you simpering fool!

Executive actions and executive Orders are two completely different animals. Bush used Executive memoranda too, just like those Presidents before him, idiot! And how many EM's can you read in the Federal Register compared to the number of EO's? Only EO's can be found in the FR because they are legally binding, half-wit!

I described to CandyCorn the difference between the two and you couldn't read correctly. Then you present an article doing EXACTLY what I said was happening with the purposeful confusion of the far right faction and their "assets" -- to conflate Executive Orders and Executive actions to imply impropriety and unlawful behavior by the Chief Executive. Damn but you are fucking stupid! Learn how to read and understand, dummy!!!!

Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.

I'm guessing you have no reading comprehension because you're so angry about looking like a fool in front of everyone? Like how you were crowing about the "limited" use of Executive Orders by Obama while being completely unaware of the Presidential Memorandum's that he had issued which do the exact same thing as the EO's. How embarrassing for you.

By the chief - trying to say that Obama's over 200 "Executive Orders" isn't that much by simply citing the three presidents that used them the most is as stupid as saying that you "only" raped and murdered 4 women and that's not very much compared to Ted Bundy. You want a real comparison? George Washington issued 1 Executive Order in his 8 years as President. One.

Now scream a bunch of profanities and make a fool of yourself again....

If Obama instructed DHS to do something illegal as you CLAIM, cite the statute's Title, Chapter and Section from the Code along with the documentation proving he violated that statute by making an unlawful order! You will never do that you bloody phony! You're all hot air and know NOTHING of value. You simply parrot propaganda.

The point I made, to which you responded, had to do with the distinction between Executive actions with Executive memoranda being the instrument of relaying instruction AND Executive Orders, which have the force of law. Instead of staying on topic, you move the goal posts with a strawman instead without any foundation to support your baseless declarations, and not address what is actually on the table.

So if you can't back up you claims with anything but your OPINIONS you definitely are simply tap dancing to cover your ignorance.

Cite your proof, fool, or yield! Waiting...

Dude.....it's one thing that you were completely ignorant of the fact that Obama was issuing "Presidential Memorandums" (as you proved above). But it's a very special kind of stupid to pretend like you are unaware of Obama's directive to stop anyone from deporting illegal aliens. I mean - the dude held a press conference that was held by every network live. And then it was covered by every network for weeks. Are you really going to pretend like you're not ware of that?

You got whipped junior. Just deal with it. My God, the melt down you're having over your lack of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution (and current events for that matter) is astounding.

More dodging, deflecting and dancing to avoid dealing with the issues put to you. Why am I not surprised you phony. Hell I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT AN EXECUTIVE ACTION WAS AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE MEMORANDA WAS THE INSTRUMENT USED YOU IDIOT! The lack of knowledge is yours you half-witted deflecting fool!

If you had the knowledge you claim you could be something other that a keyboard cowboy. Your strawman routines are polished, but not invisible. Your base dishonesty comes right on through showing you as the loser you are and most likely to remain. Pity the fool, for he admonishes you from the mirror.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are stating that you are right and all the decisions of the Supreme Court are null and void since the Court heard its first case. You are also implying that every single possible contingency which may arise in law must be written down within the four corners of the Document or it's outside the jurisdiction of ALL the Article III Courts.

You make all these assertions, but you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence without any substantiation to ground it in fact. You're a fucking fool!

Hyperbole much?

Let me help you out here junior because, well, you are struggling mightly. Obamacare is the perfect example. Congress passed an unconstitutional law in Obamacare (the federal government has no authority to enact legislation over healthcare and they have no authority to force citizens to purchase goods or services). People realized that and challenged it. Rightfully, it went to the Supreme Court. Becuase the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional. But they are not empowered to decide what the Constitution itself means.

So, no, drama queen. I am not stating that "every decision of the Supreme Court is null and void". I am, however, simply stating the reality that you don't like - that the Supreme Court (nor any other body) is empowered to decide what the Constitition says simply because liberals are looking for a loophole.

I'm not struggling at all fool. You are the projecting that circumstance and providing the deflection. You have nothing but your opinion. You opinion is worth SHIT against that of the Constitution, historical precedent and the intent of the Founders.

You talk about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Following YOUR LOGIC, how the fuck can that be, Putz? You claim SCOTUS can rule on the Constitutionality of laws, BUT they cannot interpret the Constitution. So on the one hand you affirm the necessity of Judicial Review, but on the other you claim the Court is denied the very tool used to determine the law's Constitutional status. That is the classic example of the snake swallowing its tail. Oh, and you will not even go near addressing that, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact...." That probably is owing to the fact you don't understand what it fucking means.

Give it up chump. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You can't formulate a decent argument with substantiation to support your vastly uninformed opinions. And all you have is a misguided opinion and an asshole from which to express it.

I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).

And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.

The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.

As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".

Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".

You haven't proven jack shit! All you've provided is your uninformed opinion and that is not proof of anything but your "opinions"! Here is additional proof that your are wrong in your misguided belief that if something is not written precisely within the Constitution then it is unconstitutional, which is bullshit ignorance on your part.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is 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. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~

Above in the bold/RED sentence is your argument that everything must be delineated in detail within the Constitution being destroyed by one of the Founders who wrote this in 1787. Unlike Jefferson whose 1820 quotation was your single citation during our exchange, Hamilton was actually in the Hall directly taking part in the construction of the Constitution and was therefore able to relate the Founders intent as Publius in the Papers.

The sentence above in BOLD BLUE goes directly to the debunking of your inane assertion. Hamilton made crystal clear that judges, including SCOTUS, were empowered to INTERPERT LAW, that the Constitution was LAW, and therefore, Judges were empowered to interpret the Constitution. Q.E.D.

That was the intent of the Founders from the pen of one of the Founders. That is the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. You are wrong and have been wrong. You have been informed of your error. However, I doubt that the facts will not get through that block of granite on your shoulders, you bloody fool!

 

[P@triot]

Hell I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT AN EXECUTIVE ACTION WAS AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE MEMORANDA WAS THE INSTRUMENT USED YOU IDIOT!

That's a bizarre thing to say. You didn't even know that Presidential Memorandums existed or that Obama was using them. You were crowing about how he had issued so "few" Executive Orders. You didn't even know that his highly illegal amnesty order was issued as a Presidential Memorandum.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Hell I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT AN EXECUTIVE ACTION WAS AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE MEMORANDA WAS THE INSTRUMENT USED YOU IDIOT!

That's a bizarre thing to say. You didn't even know that Presidential Memorandums existed or that Obama was using them. You were crowing about how he had issued so "few" Executive Orders. You didn't even know that his highly illegal amnesty order was issued as a Presidential Memorandum.

That's your bullshit flowing again! You're full of bluster sans any substantiation whatsoever. You're a phony and a fraud.

substantiate - to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge.
the definition of substantiation

substantiate - Provide evidence to support or prove the truth of: they had found nothing to substantiate the allegations
substantiate: definition of substantiate in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

 

[P@triot]

Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?

View attachment 73314

Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.

It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.

So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?

And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.

See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.

However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.

Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.

You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?

Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?

Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.

I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....

“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)

Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?

By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.

[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks

Thomas Jefferson on Exercise

 

[P@triot]

Hell I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT AN EXECUTIVE ACTION WAS AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE MEMORANDA WAS THE INSTRUMENT USED YOU IDIOT!

That's a bizarre thing to say. You didn't even know that Presidential Memorandums existed or that Obama was using them. You were crowing about how he had issued so "few" Executive Orders. You didn't even know that his highly illegal amnesty order was issued as a Presidential Memorandum.

That's your bullshit flowing again! You're full of bluster sans any substantiation whatsoever. You're a phony and a fraud.

substantiate - to establish by proof or competent evidence: to substantiate a charge.
the definition of substantiation

substantiate - Provide evidence to support or prove the truth of: they had found nothing to substantiate the allegations
substantiate: definition of substantiate in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

By the way, I noticed that you refused to answer my very simple question when I dumbed it down for you. What exactly are you afraid of?

Is the U.S. Constitution the law? Yes or No? All it requires from you is one word which is either three letters or two letters. Surely even you can handle that, right? What are you so afraid of?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Is the U.S. Constitution the law?

In a broad general sense, yes.

However there can be admentments to change law. What's that tell you?

Are you going to claim the cotus covers ALL laws in the USA?
No way.

 

[P@triot]

Is the U.S. Constitution the law?

In a broad general sense, yes.

However there can be admentments to change law. What's that tell you?

Are you going to claim the cotus covers ALL laws in the USA?
No way.

Thank you for your honesty. But don't try to guess what I'm going to say because you're way off. Waiting for the angry one to answer (he's apparently pretty frightened by such a simple question - I'm assuming he realizes he can't hide between 4 paragraphs of angry ramblings to cover his lies with a simple yes or no question).

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Is the U.S. Constitution the law? Yes or No? All it requires from you is one word which is either three letters or two letters. Surely even you can handle that, right? What are you so afraid of?

Damn you're an IDIOT! I cited a passage from the Federalist #78 where Hamilton made it very clear to any thinking and educated person capable of reading and understanding that very point to keep that from your list of dodges and deflections three (3) times; my posts # 48, 78 & 88, shit for brains. Here is the full passage;

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is 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. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~

Look at the sentence which is UNDERLINED & in BOLD BLUE. Here it is again below if you can't find it above or no one is around to help you;

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

Another of your faulty assertions PROVEN to be BULLSHIT!

The above is an example of substantiation, fool!

 

[P@triot]

Is the U.S. Constitution the law? Yes or No? All it requires from you is one word which is either three letters or two letters. Surely even you can handle that, right? What are you so afraid of?

Damn you're an IDIOT! I cited a passage from the Federalist #78 where Hamilton made it very clear to any thinking and educated person capable of reading and understanding that very point to keep that from your list of dodges and deflections three (3) times; my posts # 48, 78 & 88, shit for brains. Here is the full passage;

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is 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. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~

Look at the sentence which is UNDERLINED & in BOLD BLUE. Here it is again below if you can't find it above or no one is around to help you;

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

Another of your faulty assertions PROVEN to be BULLSHIT!

The above is an example of substantiation, fool!

So yes or no - is the Constitution law? I'm not asking what Hamilton believed - I'm asking what you believe? We all know that you love your profanity, large font, underlining and colors, but a simple yes or no will suffice here.

 

[candycorn]

Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.

It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.

So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?

And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.

See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.

However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.

Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.

You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?

Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?

Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.

I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....

“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)

Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?

By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.

[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks

Thomas Jefferson on Exercise

You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns

 

[Jack4jill]

Both sides of the aisle are creating legislation whose sole purpose is to enforce existing legislation. You get that? We already have a law...but we don't enforce it for some reason. And rather than just enforcing the law, we create new laws which say "hey...you must enforce that previous law". Uh....ok??? And who is going to enforce this new law which forces people to enforce the previous law?

Here is the right side of the aisle engaging in this insanity. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already protects my religious freedoms. But liberals don't care. Well...if they don't care about the freaking Constitution - the highest law in the land - why the frick would they care about or respect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)? How about instead of wasting time and resources on creating new legislation, you spend time and resources focusing on how to achieve getting America to adhere to existing legislation?!?

Last year the Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage all 50 states. Since that time, faith-based charities, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Court’s redefinition have been attacked for standing up for their religious convictions.

How do we protect these organizations? The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is legislation that does two major things:

• FADA protects religious organizations and charities from choosing between giving up their tax exempt status and compromising on their beliefs (specifically the belief that marriage is between one woman and one man).
• FADA protects religious institutions, like universities from losing their accreditation and from being pushed out of the public sphere.

The Supreme Court followed the grownups of America. You just aren't one of them, which is why you're still pissed off.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Is the U.S. Constitution the law? Yes or No? All it requires from you is one word which is either three letters or two letters. Surely even you can handle that, right? What are you so afraid of?

Damn you're an IDIOT! I cited a passage from the Federalist #78 where Hamilton made it very clear to any thinking and educated person capable of reading and understanding that very point to keep that from your list of dodges and deflections three (3) times; my posts # 48, 78 & 88, shit for brains. Here is the full passage;

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is 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. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~

Look at the sentence which is UNDERLINED & in BOLD BLUE. Here it is again below if you can't find it above or no one is around to help you;

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

Another of your faulty assertions PROVEN to be BULLSHIT!

The above is an example of substantiation, fool!

So yes or no - is the Constitution law? I'm not asking what Hamilton believed - I'm asking what you believe? We all know that you love your profanity, large font, underlining and colors, but a simple yes or no will suffice here.

So you won't take the word of one of the Founders that the Constitution is a fundamental law? If not someone who had a direct hand in creating the Constitution and knew beyond doubt the intent of his and the other delegates, then who? What a piece of work you are!

Evidently and obviously, given you believe Hamilton is not a reliable source of information in spite of his role in creating the Constitution and then explaining its meanings and intent in more than 50 of the 85 in the collection of the Federalist Papers to the people of the several States prior to ratification of the Constitution, you consider his expertise on the matter immaterial by implication. BTW, why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!

Have a nice day you know nothing know-it-all!

 

[P@triot]

So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?

And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It really does say Militia. True story bro.

Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.

It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.

See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.

However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.

Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.

You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?

Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?

Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.

I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....

“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)

Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?

By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.

[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks

Thomas Jefferson on Exercise

You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns

It doesn't say anywhere who decides that it is "well regulated". As the leader of the militia, I will decide if it is "well regulated".

Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.