Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, that argument is that the Constitution (14th Ammendment) trumps the law establishing the debt ceiling. That is clearly correct. The question is how to enforce the Constitution if Congress doesn't't What is your solution, if not the President stepping in?Some of you advocate that somehow the President can usurp Congressional authority and raise the debt ceiling. .
Wow, Cons are losing it.
Liberals never wanted to throw away the 2nd, and the debt ceiling is not in the Constitution. It was a bill passed in 1974 since Congress did not like the President having veto power over spending.
FFS, Cons are idiots.
Well, that argument is that the Constitution (14th Ammendment) trumps the law establishing the debt ceiling. That is clearly correct. The question is how to enforce the Constitution if Congress doesn't't What is your solution, if not the President stepping in?Some of you advocate that somehow the President can usurp Congressional authority and raise the debt ceiling. .
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.
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.
Talk to me when someone shoots you with bar of soap.
It worked with tobacco, it will work with guns.
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.
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.
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.
(1) ban what 'private ownership'? Guns? No, that would take an amendment.
(2) the argument can be made (wrongly, in my opinion) that the Pres ahs the power subject to the 14th to raise the debt ceiling to preserve the good faith and credit of the US government
(3) Citizens can be overturned by SCOTUS or by increasing the number of SCOTUS judges to get the majority to overturn it
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.
How is it illegal?
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.
How is it illegal?
The Court held with voting that a tax was an INFRINGEMENT of ones right to vote. Thus any punitive tax on firearms is also an infringement and the amendment states it can not be infringed.
Ther Articles of Confederation, which was the law up until 1788, gave the states no authority to replace it with the present Constitution.
Therefore, there was no legal authority to scrap the Articles, and adopt the Constitution.
So, those of you who would believe that the Constitution is the holy document carved in stone by God's finger need to keep in mind that the law of the land is a living thing, subject to interpretation, amendment, and, (for example, by Jefferson, who had no authority to buy the Lousianna purchase, and Andrew Jackson, who was quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. Now, let them enforce it"), of being totally ignored by various branches of the government.
Being a very organized person, who loves the law, I find this to be very unsettling, but, it is, in fact, true.
Wow, Cons are losing it.
Liberals never wanted to throw away the 2nd, and the debt ceiling is not in the Constitution. It was a bill passed in 1974 since Congress did not like the President having veto power over spending.
FFS, Cons are idiots.
The ability to raise the debt rests solely with Congress as enumerated in Article I section 8 of the Constitution. Further the 14th leaves enforcement of the 14th solely to Congress.
As to the 2nd shall I link the thread where Joeb and his buddies insist thatno private citizen should be allowed to own a firearm?
How is it illegal?
The Court held with voting that a tax was an INFRINGEMENT of ones right to vote. Thus any punitive tax on firearms is also an infringement and the amendment states it can not be infringed.
Got some decisions? Case law?
How is it illegal?
The Court held with voting that a tax was an INFRINGEMENT of ones right to vote. Thus any punitive tax on firearms is also an infringement and the amendment states it can not be infringed.
Got some decisions? Case law?
Wow, Cons are losing it.
Liberals never wanted to throw away the 2nd, and the debt ceiling is not in the Constitution. It was a bill passed in 1974 since Congress did not like the President having veto power over spending.
FFS, Cons are idiots.
The ability to raise the debt rests solely with Congress as enumerated in Article I section 8 of the Constitution. Further the 14th leaves enforcement of the 14th solely to Congress.
As to the 2nd shall I link the thread where Joeb and his buddies insist thatno private citizen should be allowed to own a firearm?
If you have a point, then make it.
