CDZ Can the GOP Nominate Someone With Fewer Delegates In His Favor Thank There Are Lined Up Against Him?

[BULLDOG]

So that's what you think I support? If any of that was true, I would probably hate me too. I don't know where you're getting your information,

I get my information from your posts.

but they are lying to you.

That is likely.

It's not my fault if you twist what I say to fit your silly notions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can you name one time when the constitution was edited without the amendment process, or is your imagination just running wild again?

The law Roe V. Wade is based on nothing other than an edict by SCOTUS. The court declared abortion to be a Constitutional right based on their reading of the ether.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion (you're a leftist, ergo it is the most holy sacrament in existence to you.), there is no constitutional basis for the ruling, it was invented by the SCOTUS and declared to be "law of the land."

 

[BULLDOG]

Can you name one time when the constitution was edited without the amendment process, or is your imagination just running wild again?

The law Roe V. Wade is based on nothing other than an edict by SCOTUS. The court declared abortion to be a Constitutional right based on their reading of the ether.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion (you're a leftist, ergo it is the most holy sacrament in existence to you.), there is no constitutional basis for the ruling, it was invented by the SCOTUS and declared to be "law of the land."

What was the specific edit you refer to? Which section and article was changed, and what was the date of that change, or changes? Be specific.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What was the specific edit you refer to? Which section and article was changed, and what was the date of that change, or changes? Be specific.

Are you working from a talking points list from one of the Soros hate sites?

Your question fails to track with the conversation.

 

[BULLDOG]

What was the specific edit you refer to? Which section and article was changed, and what was the date of that change, or changes? Be specific.

Are you working from a talking points list from one of the Soros hate sites?

Your question fails to track with the conversation.

No. You claimed the constitution was unconstitutionally edited. I asked for details. Put up or shut up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

No. You claimed the constitution was unconstitutionally edited. I asked for details. Put up or shut up.

No, I sure did not claim that.

Thus my question of whether your straw man is an attempt to use talking points from the hate sites.

I said that the position of the left is that the Constitution means only what the SCOTUS says it does.

 

[Eaglewings]

I feel that the people would riot at this point if they past up the person whom they obviously wanted in... We are to our breaking point with the government bullshit.

why would they "riot" if Trump does not hold a majority of available delegates even though he has more than the other candidates? should the majority of the party be unrepresented?

No, that comment was about something I saw on the news the other day...Saying that even if he gets all of the delegates he needs the GOP can still take it away from him..

they can NOT take it away from Trump IF AND ONLY IF, Donald receives 50% of the delegates...otherwise his candidacy can be contested at the convention...is my understanding...

I just watched on MSNBC 2 nights ago a republican congressman said that even if he gets the delegates they can go with someone else..seriously ..I will try and find the conversation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I just watched on MSNBC 2 nights ago a republican congressman said that even if he gets the delegates they can go with someone else..seriously ..I will try and find the conversation.

You're one of the 6 people in the nation who watches MSDNC?

 

[BULLDOG]

[

No. You claimed the constitution was unconstitutionally edited. I asked for details. Put up or shut up.

No, I sure did not claim that.

Thus my question of whether your straw man is an attempt to use talking points from the hate sites.

I said that the position of the left is that the Constitution means only what the SCOTUS says it does.

Article 3 - section 2 -line1
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,

 

[martybegan]

Can you name one time when the constitution was edited without the amendment process, or is your imagination just running wild again?

The law Roe V. Wade is based on nothing other than an edict by SCOTUS. The court declared abortion to be a Constitutional right based on their reading of the ether.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion (you're a leftist, ergo it is the most holy sacrament in existence to you.), there is no constitutional basis for the ruling, it was invented by the SCOTUS and declared to be "law of the land."

What was the specific edit you refer to? Which section and article was changed, and what was the date of that change, or changes? Be specific.

Stop being dense, you know what he is talking about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Article 3 - section 2 -line1
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,

You are confused.

The concept of judicial review was usurped by Chief Justice Marshal in Marbury v. Madison. It is not Constitutionally derived, nor does it create precedent for the creation of new law, such as RvW.

 

[martybegan]

I think its the last part more than anything.
Honestly, I don't know many people that actually like Trump. They like the "idea". They just hate the corportism, non-representation and lack of accountability. Some, like me, don't think his lunacy will be any worse than obamas, bushs etc.
The Dems will be next.. They seem to "tow the line" a little more..

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see democrats refusing to follow the lawful orders of the court. can you imagine how the GOP would have acted if a democratic court handed the election to a democrat? the dems never questioned the legitimacy of the government. certain parts of the GOP (mostly the trump parts) do it all the time.

Most of the force nowadays comes from progressives not the other way around. Progressives like the federal government, and the courts especially because they are isolated from the people. Thus Progressives don't have to deal with the Proles, they can just sue their way to making people live, act and think JUST LIKE THEY DO!!! For your view to be valid, it would have to be like People in Alabama voting to force people in NY to not allow Gay Marriage, but that's not the case. its the people in NY that are saying "you are going to do it, you are going to like it, and if you don't, here's the handcuffs. "

My sig covers my view on this quite nicely.

For your view to be valid, our form of government would not be valid. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to take your traitorous ass somewhere else.

CDZ Bulldog, try to mind your manners.

It's not the constitution that's the problem, its the progressive idea that it can be changed via the courts without using the amendment process that is the problem.

Thank you for the reminder. I have edited my post. Nobody said the constitution can be edited without the amendment process, but the constitution does say the supreme court would interpret it's meaning.

When you make things up out of thin air, you are not interpreting, you are editing, and if not de jure editing, it is de facto editing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can you name one time when the constitution was edited without the amendment process, or is your imagination just running wild again?

The law Roe V. Wade is based on nothing other than an edict by SCOTUS. The court declared abortion to be a Constitutional right based on their reading of the ether.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion (you're a leftist, ergo it is the most holy sacrament in existence to you.), there is no constitutional basis for the ruling, it was invented by the SCOTUS and declared to be "law of the land."

What was the specific edit you refer to? Which section and article was changed, and what was the date of that change, or changes? Be specific.

Stop being dense, you know what he is talking about.

I know what he is trying to say, but that's not what he is saying. He is trying to say he doesn't think the supremes are the interpreter of all our laws. He is wrong, even if he doesn't like it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Article 3 - section 2 -line1
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,

You are confused.

The concept of judicial review was usurped by Chief Justice Marshal in Marbury v. Madison. It is not Constitutionally derived, nor does it create precedent for the creation of new law, such as RvW.

Oddly, all the constitutional scholars disagree with you. I'm sure that if you write a strongly worded letter outlining your points, they will all come around to your point of view, but until then, you're wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

there's an inherent difference. the part of the GOP that's pro trump hates the federal government. they hate having to follow the rulings of the court, they hate that what is really a small percentage of the country can't force the rest of the country to do what it wants.... hence the states' rights mantra.

democrats, not so much. we don't hate the federal government. we might disagree with things, but you don't see democrats refusing to follow the lawful orders of the court. can you imagine how the GOP would have acted if a democratic court handed the election to a democrat? the dems never questioned the legitimacy of the government. certain parts of the GOP (mostly the trump parts) do it all the time.

Most of the force nowadays comes from progressives not the other way around. Progressives like the federal government, and the courts especially because they are isolated from the people. Thus Progressives don't have to deal with the Proles, they can just sue their way to making people live, act and think JUST LIKE THEY DO!!! For your view to be valid, it would have to be like People in Alabama voting to force people in NY to not allow Gay Marriage, but that's not the case. its the people in NY that are saying "you are going to do it, you are going to like it, and if you don't, here's the handcuffs. "

My sig covers my view on this quite nicely.

For your view to be valid, our form of government would not be valid. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to take your traitorous ass somewhere else.

CDZ Bulldog, try to mind your manners.

It's not the constitution that's the problem, its the progressive idea that it can be changed via the courts without using the amendment process that is the problem.

Thank you for the reminder. I have edited my post. Nobody said the constitution can be edited without the amendment process, but the constitution does say the supreme court would interpret it's meaning.

When you make things up out of thin air, you are not interpreting, you are editing, and if not de jure editing, it is de facto editing.

And yet, the constitutional experts don't agree with you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oddly, all the constitutional scholars disagree with you. I'm sure that if you write a strongly worded letter outlining your points, they will all come around to your point of view, but until then, you're wrong.

Oddly, you are simply ignorant.

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet, the constitutional experts don't agree with you.

Which Constitutional "experts," might these be?

 

[martybegan]

Can you name one time when the constitution was edited without the amendment process, or is your imagination just running wild again?

The law Roe V. Wade is based on nothing other than an edict by SCOTUS. The court declared abortion to be a Constitutional right based on their reading of the ether.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion (you're a leftist, ergo it is the most holy sacrament in existence to you.), there is no constitutional basis for the ruling, it was invented by the SCOTUS and declared to be "law of the land."

What was the specific edit you refer to? Which section and article was changed, and what was the date of that change, or changes? Be specific.

Stop being dense, you know what he is talking about.

I know what he is trying to say, but that's not what he is saying. He is trying to say he doesn't think the supremes are the interpreter of all our laws. He is wrong, even if he doesn't like it.

While they are indeed the supreme interpreter of the law, interpretation is not what they are doing anymore.

Saying that blogs on the internet are protected as free speech just like the printed word is interpretation. Saying the 4th amendment extends to digital information in one's computer is interpretation.

Saying there is a right to Abortion or Gay Marriage when neither is even remotely mentioned in the document is not interpretation.

 

[martybegan]

Most of the force nowadays comes from progressives not the other way around. Progressives like the federal government, and the courts especially because they are isolated from the people. Thus Progressives don't have to deal with the Proles, they can just sue their way to making people live, act and think JUST LIKE THEY DO!!! For your view to be valid, it would have to be like People in Alabama voting to force people in NY to not allow Gay Marriage, but that's not the case. its the people in NY that are saying "you are going to do it, you are going to like it, and if you don't, here's the handcuffs. "

My sig covers my view on this quite nicely.

For your view to be valid, our form of government would not be valid. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to take your traitorous ass somewhere else.

CDZ Bulldog, try to mind your manners.

It's not the constitution that's the problem, its the progressive idea that it can be changed via the courts without using the amendment process that is the problem.

Thank you for the reminder. I have edited my post. Nobody said the constitution can be edited without the amendment process, but the constitution does say the supreme court would interpret it's meaning.

When you make things up out of thin air, you are not interpreting, you are editing, and if not de jure editing, it is de facto editing.

And yet, the constitutional experts don't agree with you.

PROGRESSIVE constitutional "experts" don't agree with me. That is their opinion, and it is just that, an opinion.

 

[jillian]

that the best you can respond with, TN?

feel free to point out where democrats question the legitimacy of the federal government.

republicans did it when the court ordered marriage equality

republicans thought it was ok to raise arms against federal offices (I believe you still see every day posts about how the federal government should "give back" the land to "the people"

and how many times have you seen extremists on the board talk about posse comitatus?

so you can lol all you want, but you still haven't responded to the fact that there is a significant minority of GOP voters who hate the federal government... which is where trump derives much of his energy.

There is a fundamental difference between right and left.

The right views the United States Constitution as the immutable law of the land.

You of the left view the SCOTUS as the law of the land.

The right holds that courts must apply law to cases.

You of the left hold that the courts are the law.

The right holds that the Constitution may be changed through the Amendment process.

You of the left hold that the Constitution is mailable and fluid, changing when an Elana Kagan takes a role on the court. No need for amendments, since the Constitution has no meaning, and only the utterance of unelected justices determine how the nation is governed,

You have such odd beliefs about liberals. Did rush tell you all of that?

well, he didn't get it from anyone who is actually liberal.