- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #101
You continue to babble. Do you have anything of worth to offer?Absent time travel, how could we possibly go back to 1789?We are not going back to 1789.
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.
You continue to babble. Do you have anything of worth to offer?Absent time travel, how could we possibly go back to 1789?We are not going back to 1789.
You continue to babble. Do you have anything of worth to offer?Absent time travel, how could we possibly go back to 1789?We are not going back to 1789.
You know exactly what is my point, you simply don't like it. You have demonstrated repeatedly in the last few weeks you do not understand the Constitution, how American law develops, and the role of SCOTUS. That is not my problem to fix for you.You continue to babble. Do you have anything of worth to offer?Absent time travel, how could we possibly go back to 1789?We are not going back to 1789.
What was the point of your statement: "We are not going back to 1789"?
You know exactly what is my point, you simply don't like it.
Jillian, the professors, and SCOTUS know better than you, Rottweiler, yes, every time.
“We must restore constitutional government”
Such is the ignorant nonsense of the TPM and others on the ridiculous right.
The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.
The Federal government is functioning as intended by the Founding Generation: a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.
A Federal government afforded by the Constitution powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).
A Federal government whose laws are supreme, where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of Judicial Review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution, and where rulings by the Supreme Court become the law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, who have no ‘right’ to ‘nullify’ or ‘ignore’ Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
That conservatives, libertarians, and members of the TPM disagree with Supreme Court decisions because those rulings might conflict with errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma is of no consequence and devoid of merit.
The liberterian idea of constitutional government is a government that is powerless to do the will of the people and does only shit that they want. Liberterians and far right conservatives are a bunch of fascist assholes. Simply meaning that they think by the people means that the government should be so limited that the people shouldn't be able to elect a government that does more then sit on its dick.
Then you admit you are ignorant. OK.You know exactly what is my point, you simply don't like it.
I have no idea what your point is. What was the point of saying, "We're not going back to 1789"? How could we possibly go back to 1789?
False drivel.Implied powers...to excecute whatever is relevant to express powers.
End of discussion.
Yes, the Constitution was written because the Articles were too weak, and the comment on express powers does not reflect the reality of interpreting the Constitution.The liberterian idea of constitutional government is a government that is powerless to do the will of the people and does only shit that they want. Liberterians and far right conservatives are a bunch of fascist assholes. Simply meaning that they think by the people means that the government should be so limited that the people shouldn't be able to elect a government that does more then sit on its dick.
Such a statement is beyond stupid.
The Constitution established a government that had all it needed to carry out express powers.
The Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation failed.
"You are wrong" - wow. What a post of deep value. No explanation for what is wrong. No attempt to deny the claims backed by fact after fact after fact.You are wrong, Rottweiler. Because we disagree is not ipso facto that you are right. You are not.
You have not backed up anything with concrete, solid evidence."You are wrong" - wow. What a post of deep value. No explanation for what is wrong. No attempt to deny the claims backed by fact after fact after fact.You are wrong, Rottweiler. Because we disagree is not ipso facto that you are right. You are not.
I know I'm right when I can back up everything I've said with thorough documentation and the left comes back with generic, senseless stuff like "you are wrong". If you can't dispute it with something of substance, then it's obviously right.
Really? So you deny that the NSA is performing illegal surveillance on all American's? Really? Because you were crying like a little bitch about the Patriot Act when Bush signed it. What were you crying about if that's not going on? Oops....You have not backed up anything with concrete, solid evidence."You are wrong" - wow. What a post of deep value. No explanation for what is wrong. No attempt to deny the claims backed by fact after fact after fact.You are wrong, Rottweiler. Because we disagree is not ipso facto that you are right. You are not.
I know I'm right when I can back up everything I've said with thorough documentation and the left comes back with generic, senseless stuff like "you are wrong". If you can't dispute it with something of substance, then it's obviously right.
Your arguments are just spoiled and rotten.
Do better.
I gather your world view, Rott, makes you angry about government, etc.
However, you are not the authority; SCOTUS is.
Are you as stupid as Edward Baiamonte?I gather your world view, Rott, makes you angry about government, etc.
However, you are not the authority; SCOTUS is.
Nope. The American people are.
You really don't understand, do you?