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 just proved my point: the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about "having a good reason".Do you ever actually think about what you're saying? It appears that all you can do is to regurgitate right wing talking points that have been fed to you by the likes of Tiucker Carlson. I am not stupid and I am not lying biut I'm beginning to think that you are both.
What we want is for weapons of war that can take out 50 people in a minute to be banned. We want guns kept out of the hands of the mentally unstable. We want to make sure that annyone who wants to carry a gun around in public has a damned good reason for it. You can call that infringment if you want. I call it a reasonable compromise on the 2nd A.
When,?? your post #322When did I say it's improper to strike down laws banning gay marriage? Post a link quoting me saying that. Or, admit you're talking out of your ass.
You responded: "You're wrong, as usual. I'm simply correcting you comment that a court ruling made interracial marriage a guaranteed right. My position on interracial marriage is irrelevant. Just because you support interracial marriage doesn't give the court the power to make law.TheProgressivePatriot said:
And so you admit that you disapprove of the action by the court that tossed out bans on interracial marriage.? I am willing to bet that you had no such criticsm of the court when they tossed out the bans on same sex marriage. Admit it you were silent even that that too "created a law".
So if that court cannot invalidate laws because it "creates a law" ( unless it is a law that it creats a law that you want to stand) , please explain what it can do using specific examples. Are you prepared to argue that states are not required to abide by the 14th amendment which extends the bill of rights to state law and provides for equal protection under the law?
While we are giving out reading asignments, You should read The Activist. Marbury V. Madison on the issue of Judicial Review
Click to expand...
I proved your point? As usual you are full of shit The constution does not say anything about "a good reason" ? But case law says that it does need a good reason to restrict rights. I know, you claim to believe that that there is no such thing as case law, but you exposed yourself as a liar when you came out in support of the courts ruling on DACA and gun controll. THAT my friend is case lawYou just proved my point: the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about "having a good reason".
It isn't a compromise and there's nothing reasonable about any of that...lol
Weapons of war?...lol. Speaking of partisan talking points. You can't even define a weapon of war.
So, again, anyone who says the ultimate objective isn't to totally abolish gun ownership is either stupid, or lying.
Strict scrutiny | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information ...
strict scrutiny
www.law.cornell.edu
- Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the co…
Are you really that fucking stupid.?? I'm begining to think so.Weapons of war?...lol. Speaking of partisan talking points. You can't even define a weapon of war.
Educate me the, Mr. Know-it-all. Produce and argument that defines weapon of war and how they shouldn't be owned by the citizens. I bet I destroy it.Are you really that fucking stupid.?? I'm begining to think so.
Again, case law isn't law. The Constitution can't be re-interpreted to mean whatever a judge thinks it oughta mean. How would you like it if "involuntary servitude" were redefined and slavery was made legal? That would be mighty fucked up.I proved your point? As usual you are full of shit The constution does not say anything about "a good reason" ? But case law says that it does need a good reason to restrict rights. I know, you claim to believe that that there is no such thing as case law, but you exposed yourself as a liar when you came out in support of the courts ruling on DACA and gun controll. THAT my friend is case law
And there most certainly is a compelling government interest in gun controll. Lets see what other idiotic bullshit you come up with next
I would try but I am not certified as a special education instructor. Interesting how you jump on this but have nothing to say about my critique of you dishonestty, hypocrissy and inconsistance overallEducate me the, Mr. Know-it-all. Produce and argument that defines weapon of war and how they shouldn't be owned by the citizens. I bet I destroy it.
Unless it has to do with overturning restrictive gun laws or liberal immigration policies. YOU are a fucking joke.Again, case law isn't law. The Constitution can't be re-interpreted to mean whatever a judge thinks it oughta mean.
Like I said, I never made any kind of comment saying that interracial, or gay marriage being improper. You just proved yourself to be a lying piece of shit.When,?? your post #322
You responded: "You're wrong, as usual. I'm simply correcting you comment that a court ruling made interracial marriage a guaranteed right. My position on interracial marriage is irrelevant. Just because you support interracial marriage doesn't give the court the power to make law.
I absolutely made the same argument when the court tossed a gay marriage ban"
For days on end you had been blathering about how "case law is not law" Also that the courts cannot gaurantee rights. That only the lgislaturs or congress can make laws. That the courts cannot cannot change, interpret or crate law.
Then suddenly, when pressed on the issue of what the couts CAN DO, you said that they can determing if a law id constitutional and invalidate it if that is the case you write in post #353:
"The court exists to say: "does that law conflict with the Constitution?". If "yes", it's the job of the court to strike the law down. A perfect example: states that are "may issue" gun permits and only the well connected are able to obtain a permit."
So when it is about interracial marriage or same sex marriage laws that conflict with the Constitution, the courts have no power to correct that, but when it comes to restrictive gun laws, or liberal immigration policies ( DACA) the court can indeed modify those laws or policies if they rule in a way that you approve of!??
Dude, you have been exposed as a fraud, a liar, a hypocrit and a bigot! I tried to remain civil with you. I tried to be respecful of your texturalist approach to the constitution by acknowledging the fact that-as much as I disagree with it- it exists on the spectrum of Constitutional philosophies . Now it is apparent just how full of shit you are. The gloves come off now.
I never accused you of saying that . However, I documented the FACT that you claimed that the SCOTUS rulinngs in those cases was inproper because the court- in you view - did not have the authority to invalidate laws against those practices. Then I exposed you hypocrissy but calling you out on your admission that the court has a legitimate function in invalidating laws that are unconstitution in matters of gun control. You are so full of shit that your eyes must be brownLike I said, I never made any kind of comment saying that interracial, or gay marriage being improper. You just proved yourself to be a lying piece of shit.
NO case law, is law. Period. I don't give a fuck what it does.Unless it has to do with overturning restrictive gun laws or liberal immigration policies. YOU are a fucking joke.
You said it right here, you lying motherfucker...I never accused you of saying that . However, I documented the FACT that you claimed that the SCOTUS rulinngs in those cases was inproper because the court- in you view - did not have the authority to invalidate laws against those practices. Then I exposed you hypocrissy but calling you out on your admission that the court has a legitimate function in invalidating laws that are unconstitution in matters of gun control. You are so full of shit that your eyes must be brown
Holy fucking shit! What! After all of this time that you were saying that the court can only "review" NOW you are saying that the court can strike down a law that conflicts with the constitition. It was improper for them to strike down the laws banning same sex and interracial marrige but it's OK to strike down a laws restricting the ownership of guns!! How hypocritical!! Do you realise whhat an ass you just made of yourself? You have utterly destroyed any credabilty that you might have had, which was not a lot to begin with
Because the "weapons of war" argument is bullshit and you know it.I would try but I am not certified as a special education instructor. Interesting how you jump on this but have nothing to say about my critique of you dishonestty, hypocrissy and inconsistance overall
I said WHAT exactly right here? That is not a accusation.. It is an observation . I did not accuse you of being against gay or interracial marriage. However, given that fact that you have chosen to assign different constitutional standards to those issues as oppoed to guns and immigration, it is fair to conclude that you are in fact hostile to gay and interracial marriage. The fact that you have to call me a motherfucker indicates to me that you are on the defensive.You said it right here, you lying motherfucker...
Really? What happenend to " Case law is not law"? You seem to be having trouble keeping tract of your own bullshit. A good liar remembers their lies. You are not a good liar. I have got you by the balls slick. You have credability. You cannot crawl out from under the shit pile that you created for yourself. You are a fraud and a hypocrite You are done hereNO case law, is law. Period. I don't give a fuck what it does.
Really? So someone should be allowen to carry a fully auto M16 on there shoulder with a 30 round clip into Walmart ?Because the "weapons of war" argument is bullshit and you know it.
See your post#366 moron. Christ you are a mess! Once again you have been exposed as a fraud, a liar, a hypocrit and a bigot! I tried to remain civil with you. I tried to be respecful of your texturalist approach to the constitution by acknowledging the fact that-as much as I disagree with it- it exists on the spectrum of Constitutional philosophies . Now it is apparent just how full of shit you are. The gloves come off now.NO case law, is law. Period. I don't give a fuck what it does.
…a conservative.you have been exposed as a fraud, a liar, a hypocrit and a bigot!
Why not? What danger is a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon of any description presenting? Oh and by the way a M-16 doesn’t use a “clip”.Really? So someone should be allowen to carry a fully auto M16 on there shoulder with a 30 round clip into Walmart ?
You're not going to lie your way out of this one.I said WHAT exactly right here? That is not a accusation.. It is an observation . I did not accuse you of being against gay or interracial marriage. However, given that fact that you have chosen to assign different constitutional standards to those issues as oppoed to guns and immigration, it is fair to conclude that you are in fact hostile to gay and interracial marriage. The fact that you have to call me a motherfucker indicates to me that you are on the defensive.
