The US Constitution

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok all you liberals, a reminder. If you don't like parts of the Constitution or even the whole thing, you can not legislate away the parts you don't like.

There are two ways to change the Constitution. One is by Amendment, the other is to call for the whole thing to be changed. Neither are done via legislation.,

Not Obama and not the House or the senate can legislate away the restrictions and the rights inherent in the Constitution. No law can replace them, modify them or eliminate them.

The usual way to get an amendment brought forth is for both Houses of Congress to pass an amendment bill through and submit it to the States, where you need 37 States to ratify it.

A Constitutional Congress can be called by the States or the Congress and it can totally rewrite the document and then is submitted for those 37 States to approve.

So for those of you, and there are a few, that keep claiming that certain restrictions in the Constitution can be ignored, you are wrong. If you don't like them get that Amendment passed. If you think the whole thing is outdated Lobby for a Constitutional Congress.

So to rehash, the 2nd can not be legislated away. The debt ceiling can never be raised by the President. The right of the people to voice themselves in Politics can not be legislated away. The Senate is not going away anytime soon.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to do a bit more reading, there is nothing in the constitution that allows for throwing the whole thing out. Article 5 deals only with amendments.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You might want to do a bit more reading, there is nothing in the constitution that allows for throwing the whole thing out. Article 5 deals only with amendments.

The States can call for a Convention or a Congress and rewrite the whole thing. Just like they did for the Articles of Confederation.

 

[francoHFW]

HORSE PATOOT...examples- and I can tell you already any unconstitutionality is only in your brainwashed mind...

 

[R.C. Christian]

HORSE PATOOT...examples- and I can tell you already any unconstitutionality is only in your brainwashed mind...

Big surprise ALERT^^.

 

[francoHFW]

Background checks and limiting types of guns are already deemed constitutional...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Joeb and several other liberals advocate openly to ban all private ownership. Some of you advocate that somehow the President can usurp Congressional authority and raise the debt ceiling. Several of you have openly advocated over turning the Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the muzzling of Americans before elections.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Background checks and limiting types of guns are already deemed constitutional...

The ruling is that a firearm must be usable, of use, or in use by the military to be covered. so you can not ban the supposed assault rifle.

 

[regent]

The Court has recently incorporated the second amendment and I doubt if the Court is done with that amendment. As new cases are filed so will there be new decisions and as Justice Hughes said the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok all you liberals, a reminder. If you don't like parts of the Constitution or even the whole thing, you can not legislate away the parts you don't like.

There are two ways to change the Constitution. One is by Amendment, the other is to call for the whole thing to be changed. Neither are done via legislation.,

Not Obama and not the House or the senate can legislate away the restrictions and the rights inherent in the Constitution. No law can replace them, modify them or eliminate them.

The usual way to get an amendment brought forth is for both Houses of Congress to pass an amendment bill through and submit it to the States, where you need 37 States to ratify it.

A Constitutional Congress can be called by the States or the Congress and it can totally rewrite the document and then is submitted for those 37 States to approve.

So for those of you, and there are a few, that keep claiming that certain restrictions in the Constitution can be ignored, you are wrong. If you don't like them get that Amendment passed. If you think the whole thing is outdated Lobby for a Constitutional Congress.

So to rehash, the 2nd can not be legislated away. The debt ceiling can never be raised by the President. The right of the people to voice themselves in Politics can not be legislated away. The Senate is not going away anytime soon.

What brought on this hissy-fit?

No one’s said otherwise.

There may have been some you might perceive as ‘liberal’ saying something of this sort, but they’re in no way representative of all liberals, just as conservatives who say stupid, ignorant things about the Constitution aren’t representative of all conservatives.

And the president agrees with you, btw; he stated he as no authority to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.

No need to get your hackles up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok all you liberals, a reminder. If you don't like parts of the Constitution or even the whole thing, you can not legislate away the parts you don't like.

There are two ways to change the Constitution. One is by Amendment, the other is to call for the whole thing to be changed. Neither are done via legislation.,

Not Obama and not the House or the senate can legislate away the restrictions and the rights inherent in the Constitution. No law can replace them, modify them or eliminate them.

The usual way to get an amendment brought forth is for both Houses of Congress to pass an amendment bill through and submit it to the States, where you need 37 States to ratify it.

A Constitutional Congress can be called by the States or the Congress and it can totally rewrite the document and then is submitted for those 37 States to approve.

So for those of you, and there are a few, that keep claiming that certain restrictions in the Constitution can be ignored, you are wrong. If you don't like them get that Amendment passed. If you think the whole thing is outdated Lobby for a Constitutional Congress.

So to rehash, the 2nd can not be legislated away. The debt ceiling can never be raised by the President. The right of the people to voice themselves in Politics can not be legislated away. The Senate is not going away anytime soon.

What brought on this hissy-fit?

No one’s said otherwise.

There may have been some you might perceive as ‘liberal’ saying something of this sort, but they’re in no way representative of all liberals, just as conservatives who say stupid, ignorant things about the Constitution aren’t representative of all conservatives.

And the president agrees with you, btw; he stated he as no authority to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.

No need to get your hackles up.

I see you like to simply not tell the truth. Joeb and at least 2 others have stated on this board that private ownership of all firearms must be eliminated. AT least 3 or 4 posters insisted that Obama could raise the debt ceiling. And I believe even you have claimed that the Supreme Court decision to strip the finance reform law of its teeth was wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Joeb and several other liberals advocate openly to ban all private ownership. Some of you advocate that somehow the President can usurp Congressional authority and raise the debt ceiling. Several of you have openly advocated over turning the Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the muzzling of Americans before elections.

What constitutes ‘several other’? 5? 50? 100?

And who are ‘some of you’?

Again, ‘several others’ and ‘some of you’ do not constitute ‘all liberals,’ and is not representative of a majority of liberals.

The fact is that liberals for the most part consider Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law, and do not seek to have it overturned, including the president.

In essence Second Amendment jurisprudence allows for most restrictions and regulations currently in place, save that of an outright ban of a particular class of firearms.

Arguing in good faith as to what firearms should be considered in common use or dangerous and unusual does not mean someone is opposed to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

 

[candycorn]

HORSE PATOOT...examples- and I can tell you already any unconstitutionality is only in your brainwashed mind...

What you do is raise taxes on the firearms, making them very expensive or force gun manufacturers to put bonds behind each weapon in case there is a killing with the weapon...

Either way drives the price up, the demand down, and makes us safer since we have among the highest rates of firearm deaths in the universe.

All the while the US constitution is held in tact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

HORSE PATOOT...examples- and I can tell you already any unconstitutionality is only in your brainwashed mind...

What you do is raise taxes on the firearms, making them very expensive or force gun manufacturers to put bonds behind each weapon in case there is a killing with the weapon...

Either way drives the price up, the demand down, and makes us safer since we have among the highest rates of firearm deaths in the universe.

All the while the US constitution is held in tact.

A punitive tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple concept, voting is not in and of itself protected by the Constitution but the court ruled a tax was unconstitutional. Why exactly would one on firearms in direct violation of Amendment 2 be different? As for bond again infringes on the right to bear arms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Joeb and several other liberals advocate openly to ban all private ownership. Some of you advocate that somehow the President can usurp Congressional authority and raise the debt ceiling. Several of you have openly advocated over turning the Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the muzzling of Americans before elections.

What constitutes ‘several other’? 5? 50? 100?

And who are ‘some of you’?

Again, ‘several others’ and ‘some of you’ do not constitute ‘all liberals,’ and is not representative of a majority of liberals.

The fact is that liberals for the most part consider Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law, and do not seek to have it overturned, including the president.

In essence Second Amendment jurisprudence allows for most restrictions and regulations currently in place, save that of an outright ban of a particular class of firearms.

Arguing in good faith as to what firearms should be considered in common use or dangerous and unusual does not mean someone is opposed to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Still openly lying I see, several is more then one and a couple is 2 to 3. As I recall you opposed the Supreme Court decision to strip the Finance reform law. Do I need to link you to threads I know for a fact you have participated in?

"All you" is a saying it does not mean every one. And I never claimed at any time I meant everyone. You however keep claiming NO ONE supports the elimination of firearms and that NO ONE claimed Obama can raise the debt ceiling. And of course you claimed no one disagrees with the Courts decision. No one is specific it is not a saying one uses for some.

 

[candycorn]

HORSE PATOOT...examples- and I can tell you already any unconstitutionality is only in your brainwashed mind...

What you do is raise taxes on the firearms, making them very expensive or force gun manufacturers to put bonds behind each weapon in case there is a killing with the weapon...

Either way drives the price up, the demand down, and makes us safer since we have among the highest rates of firearm deaths in the universe.

All the while the US constitution is held in tact.

A punitive tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple concept, voting is not in and of itself protected by the Constitution but the court ruled a tax was unconstitutional. Why exactly would one on firearms in direct violation of Amendment 2 be different? As for bond again infringes on the right to bear arms.

It's not a punative tax; its to help pay for all of the emergency care from guys who get shot dead over a pair of Nikes, or when they're buying tea and skittles...

It's for those little dixie cups the cops have to put over the spent shell casings...

It's for the clorox used to wash the spilled blood off the sidewalk...

It's for the pain and suffering guns bring...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What you do is raise taxes on the firearms, making them very expensive or force gun manufacturers to put bonds behind each weapon in case there is a killing with the weapon...

Either way drives the price up, the demand down, and makes us safer since we have among the highest rates of firearm deaths in the universe.

All the while the US constitution is held in tact.

A punitive tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple concept, voting is not in and of itself protected by the Constitution but the court ruled a tax was unconstitutional. Why exactly would one on firearms in direct violation of Amendment 2 be different? As for bond again infringes on the right to bear arms.

It's not a punative tax; its to help pay for all of the emergency care from guys who get shot dead over a pair of Nikes, or when they're buying tea and skittles...

It's for those little dixie cups the cops have to put over the spent shell casings...

It's for the clorox used to wash the spilled blood off the sidewalk...

It's for the pain and suffering guns bring...

Wrong answer, unless you plan a punitive tax on knives bathtubs cars and a host of other items that kill people you are simply lying. Again for the slow and amazingly stupid, a punitive tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as is a bond on firearms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where ya at Clayton, we have one right here in this thread. I notice you got nothing to say now.

 

[KGB]

What you do is raise taxes on the firearms, making them very expensive or force gun manufacturers to put bonds behind each weapon in case there is a killing with the weapon...

Either way drives the price up, the demand down, and makes us safer since we have among the highest rates of firearm deaths in the universe.

All the while the US constitution is held in tact.

A punitive tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple concept, voting is not in and of itself protected by the Constitution but the court ruled a tax was unconstitutional. Why exactly would one on firearms in direct violation of Amendment 2 be different? As for bond again infringes on the right to bear arms.

It's not a punative tax; its to help pay for all of the emergency care from guys who get shot dead over a pair of Nikes, or when they're buying tea and skittles...

It's for those little dixie cups the cops have to put over the spent shell casings...

It's for the clorox used to wash the spilled blood off the sidewalk...

It's for the pain and suffering guns bring...

you don't want a gun, fine. However, don't tell me I can't have one. Guns don't bring pain & suffering. That would fall under the category of the criminal bringing those things...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

HORSE PATOOT...examples- and I can tell you already any unconstitutionality is only in your brainwashed mind...

What you do is raise taxes on the firearms, making them very expensive or force gun manufacturers to put bonds behind each weapon in case there is a killing with the weapon...

Either way drives the price up, the demand down, and makes us safer since we have among the highest rates of firearm deaths in the universe.

All the while the US constitution is held in tact.

A punitive tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Pretty simple concept, voting is not in and of itself protected by the Constitution but the court ruled a tax was unconstitutional. Why exactly would one on firearms in direct violation of Amendment 2 be different? As for bond again infringes on the right to bear arms.

Some might argue the IM is a ‘punitive tax’ and it was upheld as Constitutional.

Instead, your response should be: “How would a tax be levied concerning private intrastate gun sales requiring no background check, permits, or sales records”?