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

[jillian]

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.

no. actual constitutional experts don't agree with you.

that should tell you that you need to look further

 

[martybegan]

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.

no. actual constitutional experts don't agree with you.

that should tell you that you need to look further

And who are these so called "constitutional experts"? If you list them I have a feeling they would lean so far to the left their ears would brush the ground.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Have you ever even met anyone who actually liberal?

A leftist like you would have nothing in common with them.

 

[jillian]

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.

no. actual constitutional experts don't agree with you.

that should tell you that you need to look further

And who are these so called "constitutional experts"? If you list them I have a feeling they would lean so far to the left their ears would brush the ground.

as opposed to what the rightwing blogosphere tells you?

 

[jillian]

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.

people in the GOP are humiliated by trump. if they have an excuse to not have him as their nominee, they will take it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

no. actual constitutional experts don't agree with you.

that should tell you that you need to look further

And who are these so called "constitutional experts"? If you list them I have a feeling they would lean so far to the left their ears would brush the ground.

as opposed to what the rightwing blogosphere tells you?

They are not "telling me" anything. You are the one running for the cover of "experts", not me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They are not "telling me" anything. You are the one running for the cover of "experts", not me.

Appeal to authority is expected. If not for fallacy, Jilly would no connection to logic at all.

 

[jillian]

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.

no. actual constitutional experts don't agree with you.

that should tell you that you need to look further

And who are these so called "constitutional experts"? If you list them I have a feeling they would lean so far to the left their ears would brush the ground.

as opposed to what the rightwing blogosphere tells you?

They are not "telling me" anything. You are the one running for the cover of "experts", not me.

no. it's that I told you I'm not going to waste my time when you have no interest in actually knowing anything.

 

[tyroneweaver]

As time goes on most of the later Primaries are closed primaries, i.e. only republicans can vote in them, and more and more of them become "winner takes all". This is the mechanism in place to prevent convention chaos. If the Republican party wants someone other than Trump, it has to become a two man race very very soon.

No. If trump ends up with less than 50% of the delegates, then all delegates are released and they can support who ever they want. It becomes a big thunder dome type affair with 2,340 participants. Many men enter, one man leaves.

This is quote is a little bit better:

 

[martybegan]

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

no. actual constitutional experts don't agree with you.

that should tell you that you need to look further

And who are these so called "constitutional experts"? If you list them I have a feeling they would lean so far to the left their ears would brush the ground.

as opposed to what the rightwing blogosphere tells you?

They are not "telling me" anything. You are the one running for the cover of "experts", not me.

no. it's that I told you I'm not going to waste my time when you have no interest in actually knowing anything.

Sorry if I don't agree with you. If you want an echo chamber that suits your views, there are other sites that fit the bill.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

It's not a matter of invalidation anything. It's a matter of determining if the actions meet the criteria of the constitution.

 

[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.

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.

I understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I guess your opinion just doesn't count as much as theirs. Get over it.

 

[Agit8r]

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

Or does the GOP have to nominate someone else? Or does the GOP Convention become absolute chaos like the Democratic Convention was in 1968?

It doesn't have to end up like 1968. Trump people say they are the "silent majority" so surely they won't turn violent

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not a matter of invalidation anything. It's a matter of determining if the actions meet the criteria of the constitution.

You claimed that judicial review came from the Constitution, it does not, as you have been shown.

Marbury is a fundamental case in Constitutional law, that were unaware of it shows that you lack any level on knowledge on the subject.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not a matter of invalidation anything. It's a matter of determining if the actions meet the criteria of the constitution.

You claimed that judicial review came from the Constitution, it does not, as you have been shown.

Marbury is a fundamental case in Constitutional law, that were unaware of it shows that you lack any level on knowledge on the subject.

As always, I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to your city council. I'm sure they will straighten it all out to your satisfaction as soon as they can. If that doesn't work, I guess you could hold your breath till you turn blue, of fall on the ground crying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As always, I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to your city council. I'm sure they will straighten it all out to your satisfaction as soon as they can. If that doesn't work, I guess you could hold your breath till you turn blue, of fall on the ground crying.

And this will make you less ignorant?

I'm skeptical.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

No, you are wrong.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I guess your opinion just doesn't count as much as theirs. Get over it.

That doesn't bother me in the slightest. They are still wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I guess your opinion just doesn't count as much as theirs. Get over it.

That doesn't bother me in the slightest. They are still wrong.

You are certainly entitled to believe that, but you should know some goober on the internet whining because he's dissatisfied won't change much.