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.
Hillary Clinton? Is that you?But why???
Why can’t we continue to just slaughter the innocent, defenseless, helpless, preborn humans???!!
WHY??????
Strange how something can say one thing on one day (and we're told it means something other than what it says) and say the exact same thing on a different day and allegedly mean something else entirely different from the determined previous meaning.SCOTUS has reversed itself over 300 times. Or were you unaware of that?
Let's think about what you just said. "You have no right to take the life of another human, in pubic or private". Except apparently, when you want their land (the Native Americans), or as punishment for disobedience because they are considerd under law, your own personal property. The slaves also were made to bear the offspring of the slave owners who raped and impregnated them, in order to expand their net worth by increasing their inventory of slaves.You have no right to take the life of another human, in public or private. And the right of self defense is part of natural law, citizens understood that right at the founding, so see the 9th Amendment, it did not need to be enumerated.
If the founders could have foreseen you commies and activist judges, there would have been more than 100 amendments in the bill of rights.
Strange how something can say one thing on one day (and we're told it means something other than what it says) and say the exact same thing on a different day and allegedly mean something else entirely different from the determined previous meaning.
So does that mean they are that incompetent or what? I had an attorney tell me once that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the nation but at least I can understand why they do what they do. "They" know that impoverish defendants and/or plaintiff's often cannot financially afford to litigate a case to it's natural end.
Is there a question in there?
So ruling against some individuals out of hand as a strategy achieves the desired end, "those people" ultimately have to go away, one way or another.
Let's think about what you just said. "You have no right to take the life of another human, in pubic or private". Except apparently, when you want their land (the Native Americans), or as punishment for disobedience because they are considerd under law, your own personal property. The slaves also were made to bear the offspring of the slave owners who raped and impregnated them, in order to expand their net worth by increasing their inventory of slaves.
How do you think these things should have been addressed via the Constitution? Again, you did say "you have no right to take the life of another human, public or private"? How do you reconcile this?
Are you speaking of yourself?No, governments have powers, people have rights. Having a militia is a State power, the 'right" to keep and bear arms belongs to individual citizens. So simple even a commie should be able to understand.
Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which prohibited the possession of handguns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Court meticulously detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention and proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms. The Court carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in dicta stated that firearm regulations would not implicate the Second Amendment if that weaponry cannot be used for law-abiding purposes. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Because you all ignore the fact that at the time the 2nd was written EVERYBODY was in the militia. This is all well known history.
Try readong the Federalist Papers and the thinking at the time it was written will be abundantly clear.
Ironic isn't it, that the same justice who stated that "the Negro has no rights that a white man need respect", in what is touted as the worse SCOTUS decision ever handed down, explicitly stated all of the reasons why they didn't want black people to have the same rights as whites.The right to keep and bear arms.
Long Ago a Chief Justice Agreed That Citizens Had the Right to Go About Armed
Indeed, it was Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott who admitted to this fact. See page 58 of Bruen at the below link. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing...www.usmessageboard.com
LOL, I knew you'd attempt some twisted justification for that. That along with your inability to debate the topic without the childish name calling speaks volumes.Good God, you're pathetic. Conquest and slavery has been practiced everywhere man has ever occupied sometime in history. It takes a totally ignorant and brainwashed commie to even think about judging historical events by todays standards. Reconcile that..
LOL, I knew you'd attempt some twisted justification for that.
I have no idea why you would want to engage me on this comment, but since you have I'd appreciate it if you just drop it, since you won't answer my question(s) and instead keep repeating this same statistic without providing a source or citation for your data.There is no justification for the wrongs that happened in the past. Even if they happened in other places, which they have. But here's the thing. We can't go back and undo them.
What we CAN do is look for the injustices happening now, in the time and place where we live. I brought up to you that although blacks make up about 15% of the US population, they make up 40% of abortions. That's a moral outrage and an injustice that's happening NOW. All women deserve better than abortion--but since it's happening to black women in greater numbers, they especially deserve better.
Ironic isn't it, that the same justice who stated that "the Negro has no rights that a white man need respect", in what is touted as the worse SCOTUS decision ever handed down, explicitly stated all of the reasons why they didn't want black people to have the same rights as whites.
I have no idea why you would want to engage me on this comment, but since you have I'd appreciate it if you just drop it, since you won't answer my question(s) and instead keep repeating this same statistic without providing a source or citation for your data.
As long as we have the poverty levels and societal disparities in all areas of life for black people I will continue to support the right of ALL women to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to continue a pregnancy. No amount of time or passage of laws will change that. And if you don't get where this comes from, go back and reread what I wrote about the black female slaves being forced to bear the children who were the result of rape by the slave owners so that he could increase his holdings and further enrich himself by the birth of these offspring.
And while what I referenced is indeed in the past, the current situation reduces women to the same standing as those women held in slavery - no autonomy over their own lives and bodies.
Lastly, with the majority of the most prolific people posting on this board openly expressing hostility, dislike, derision, etc. against black people, this phony concern about the number or percentage of black women availing themselves of this medical procedure which reduces the overall black population would be laughable if you all weren't so persistent. Why wouldn't this make white racists happy?
Maybe reconsider what “enumerated” means.
And I don’t intend to be just snarky. I mean if more conversationally. Example: there is no constitutional right to smoke weed. For interstate purposes, the Feds can criminalize weed. But for intrastate purposes (let’s use NY as the example), smoking weed is now legal. Can the federal government impose a criminal law prohibiting the smoking of weed within the borders of NY?
What would give them the authority to do that? Criminal laws are state issues.
No. The Feds can’t arrest you in NY for smoking weed in NY. No federal jurisdiction.It is already a federal law in NY. The federal government can indeed arrest you for smoking weed in NY. I wonder why the Supreme Court hasn't got that one yet?
No. The Feds can’t arrest you in NY for smoking weed in NY. No federal jurisdiction.
No. They can’t. Absent a federal nexus (like interstate travel or distribution or something on federal property), they have no jurisdiction.
yep…Roe was obviously results driven ans poorly doneSo the Conservative Republican Justices that voted for Roe 7-2 were not looking at the Constitution but these ultra conservative Justices are?
Ummmm
pknopp's understanding of the legal system is nonexistent, yet he will argue with you as if he does until the cows come home (whenever that is).No. They can’t. Absent a federal nexus (like interstate travel or distribution or something on federal property), they have no jurisdiction.
Now, if they are indeed alleging a federal crime (let’s say they claim they were tracking the distribution network over state lines) they may have that nexus. But if you’re sitting in your stoop outside of your apartment in some street in the Bronx or Manhattan, and a federal agent happens to see you smoking a blunt, he has no jurisdiction to arrest you.
You’re just wrong.
