Traitorous state texASS & Anti-Female Rights': Federal Judge BLOCKS new Texas ABORTION BAN! WHEEEE!

[jillian]

Ignore the ruling. The Judge lacks constitutional authority to tell Texas what they can and cannot do.

That is a lie, nutter butter.

What were you saying about not knowing civics? D you're stupid.

 

[Baz Ares]

Just....

You're a sick Individual.

What's wrong with protecting the born, rights'?
If the mostly water GOO sack makes it over the goal line,
well in this case, over the marked Clitoris Line:
aka Vaginal opening below / or Belly Cut, It has rights', then.
btw: The lord was, well is this world first know abortionist. Really!

 

[Natural Citizen]

What were you saying about not knowing civics? D you're stupid.

Hm. You went to public school, then? I hear it takes a body tempereature of 98.6 to make honor roll these days.

The State has the authority here. Not the federal government. And certainly not a clown in a gown at the federal level.

Federalism. States rights. That's how liberties are protected. Learn them both. It'll be good for you.

 

[jillian]

Just....

You're a sick Individual.

You're pondscum. Your point

What were you saying about not knowing civics? D you're stupid.

Hm. You went to public school, then? I hear it takes a body tempereature of 98.6 to make honor roll these days.

The State has the authority here. Not the federal government. And certainly not a clown in a gown.

Federalism. States rights. That's how liberties are protected. Learn them both. It'll be good for you.

You seem to be confused between the articles of confederation and the constitution. The states have no right to grant fewer rights than the constitution idiota

Can you say "supremacy clause", shmuck?

 

[Natural Citizen]

You seem to be confused between the articles of confederation and the constitution. The states have no right to grant fewer rights than the constitution idiota

Can you say "supremacy clause", shmuck?

I already explained the supremacy clause in another thread. Do you want to be next to be embarrassed?

Be careful. You are out of your league in this debate. I promise. Keep going, though. It's your reputation. Not mine.

 

[buttercup]

An abortion is an abortion, from conception to the best time to exterminate the GOO MASS in week 28-32.

Sometimes they get twins. Them are special days.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just trolling, because no one in their right mind would say some of the things you say and have such a ghoulish glee about "exterminating" viable babies.

Here's a pre-born baby at 20 weeks. Does this look like "goo" to you ? Like I said to the other person, premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 weeks. Now for once, be honest… do those premature (born) babies between 21–32 weeks come out as "goo," yes or no?

Stages of Pregnancy: 1st, 2nd, 3rd Trimester Images



Here's another pre-born baby that you advocate "exterminating."

 

[jillian]

You seem to be confused between the articles of confederation and the constitution. The states have no right to grant fewer rights than the constitution idiota

Can you say "supremacy clause", shmuck?

I already explained the supremecy clause in another thread. Do you want to be next to be embarrassed?

Be careful. You are out of your league in this debate. I promise.

I had Telford Taylor explain it to me, moron. I don't need an imbecile who knows nothing about the constitution or the courts making up insane garbage.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You seem to be confused between the articles of confederation and the constitution. The states have no right to grant fewer rights than the constitution idiota

Can you say "supremacy clause", shmuck?

I already explained the supremecy clause in another thread. Do you want to be next to be embarrassed?

Be careful. You are out of your league in this debate. I promise.

I had Telford Taylor explain it to me, moron. I don't need an imbecile who knows nothing about the constitution or the courts making up insane garbage.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. No idea.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Can you say "supremacy clause", shmuck?

For your convenience, I've located my previous posting with regard to the Supremacy Clause. I really don;t feel like typing it all over again, so I'll copypasta for you.


Doug Jones: "The 2nd Amendment has limitations"...translation: i'm coming for your gun!

Cliff notes...

I'm sorry, but the supremecy clause does not make state nullification unconstitutional. Ya noob. All it does is beg the question.

What you need to do before I make you look completely stupid in front of your friends is go read the nullification arguments from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. That settles the question concisely.

Notwithstanding the founders own words. In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this - that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

I could go on and on.

 

[Natural Citizen]

By the way. Someone please locate for us where Judicial review is to be found in Article III of the Constitution

Do it.

We'll wait.

jullian, would you like to show off that public education? Go find it for us, please.

 

[Baz Ares]

An abortion is an abortion, from conception to the best time to exterminate the GOO MASS in week 28-32.

Sometimes they get twins. Them are special days.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just trolling, because no one in their right mind would say some of the things you say and have such a ghoulish glee about "exterminating" viable babies.

Here's a pre-born baby at 20 weeks. Does this look like "goo" to you ? Like I said to the other person, premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 weeks. Now for once, be honest… do those premature (born) babies between 21–32 weeks come out as "goo," yes or no?

Stages of Pregnancy: 1st, 2nd, 3rd Trimester Images



Here's another pre-born baby that you advocate "exterminating."

As I recall, even born babies have few if any rights'.
Just Mom Dad and the courts. A newborn has no say.
Meaning, others choose if IT lives or died.

BTW: Did you know back in the old days, 1776-1905.
Babies were used to fighting off wolfs. So the others
could get away. That's good old, old family value is
somethang back thang.

 

[jillian]

By the way. Someone please locate for us where Judicial review is to be found in Article III of the Constitution

Do it.

We'll wait.

jullian, would you like to show off that public education? Go find it for us, please.

I'll refer you to Marburg v Madison imbecile.

Have fun

Btw with whom did you study con law, loony toon?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Btw with whom did you study con law, loony toon?

Ahem. Judicial review in Article III of the constitution. Go find it and show it to us, please. Show us that public education of yours.

We'll wait.

 

[jillian]

Can you say "supremacy clause", shmuck?

For your convenience, I've located my previous posting with regard to the Supremacy Clause. I really don;t feel like typing it all over again, so I'll copypasta for you.


Doug Jones: "The 2nd Amendment has limitations"...translation: i'm coming for your gun!

Cliff notes...

I'm sorry, but the supremecy clause does not make state nullification unconstitutional. Ya noob. All it does is beg the question.

What you need to do before I make you look completely stupid in front of your friends is go read the nullification arguments from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. That settles the question concisely.

Notwithstanding the founders own words. In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this - that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

I could go on and on.

I already told you idiota, I don't learn con law from idiots who know nothing about it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anybody else find it?

jillian lost. Apparently she didn't find Judicial review in Article III of the constitution. And the supremacy clause its also shot down for her.

We're gonna need something.

 

[jillian]

Btw with whom did you study con law, loony toon?

Ahem. Judicial review in Article III of the constitution. Go find it and show it to us, please. Show us that public education of yours.

We'll wait.

Again with whom did you study con law. The concept of judicial review has been law since Marburg v Madison.

I can't help it if you're stupid.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anybody?

jillian lost.

You do know back in the times your helmet was made. They used lead.

Well, you didn't happen to locate Judicial review in Article III of the Constitution, did you? jillian left me hanging here. Which I thought was rude.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I can't help it if you're stupid.

Now, jillian.You haven't fetched Judicial review in Article III. We're waiting. K? Be a sweetheart and find that for us, okay? You're gonna need to do that if you expect to be taken seriously in any way.

Is there an amendment that I do not know about? You know how amendments work, right? And you know the process in doing so, right?

 

[jillian]

Anybody else find it?

jillian lost. Apparently she didn't find Judicial review in Article III of the constitution. And the supremacy clause its also shot down for her.

We're gonna need something.

Lost what moron?

Again this is why people like you make me sick. I'm telling you the law is marbuty v Madison and over 200 years of case law.

Nor go back to your basement

But again -- with whom did you study con law?

 

[jillian]

I can't help it if you're stupid.

Now, jillian.You haven't fetched Judicial review in Article III. We're waiting. K? Be a sweethert and find that for us, okay? You;re gonna need to do that if you exect to be taken seriously in any way.

Again. With whom did you study con law, hack. Our laws are comprised of the constitution, out statutes, out treaties and our case law moron.

If you knew anything you'd understand that. Have you read Marburg v Madison dum dum?

So who taught you con law again?