Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

[frigidweirdo]

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

That's the equivalent of saying "the speed limit is fluid" when you get pulled over for speeding. That's simply not true and the officer wouldn't accept it. Government is not "fluid". It is rigidly structured and restricted by rules and laws just like the rest of society. However, it can be altered through the amendment process.

Then maybe you haven't been to Germany where the speed limit is fluid.

Of course the Constitution is fluid. Gay marriage is now constitutionally protected. It was in 1789, it was in 2010, but it is now.

We're not in Germany. Nice try. Would you like to try again? Some nations may very well have a "fluid" system of government (like the autobahn that you are trying to desperately use here). But we do not.

And gay marriage isn't "Constitutional". All you're doing is proving how the Constitution is violated. So....again...would you like to try again? That's strike two.

I didn't say we were in Germany, and making such a point is rather ridiculous. You made an analogy, I showed the flaw in your analogy. Your response is to say "we're not in Germany" which is just a waste of time.

Gay marriage is protected by the constitution. Get over it.

I'm not having you tell me that it isn't constitutional. The US Supreme Court decided. You can ignore this all you like, but it's still the reality.

There was no flaw in my analogy. You were unable to dispute American law so you desperately pointed to another nation. We're in America. American laws are not "fluid". Nor is the U.S. Constitution. That is indisputable.

Furthermore, gay marriage (nor any marriage for that matter) is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If it is - please tell me the article and section. No? Yeah - didn't think so.

The Supreme Court is not the U.S. Constitution (and I really shouldn't have to explain something so basic to you). The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch and is made up of 9 human beings. The Constitution is a document and the law.

I'm not interested in silly arguments about whether you think I thought this or that.

Gay marriage is protected

Go look at Obergefell v. Hodges.

Both the Due process clause and Equal protection clause protect gay marriage.

That would be the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, just in case you want to look it up.

The Supreme Court isn't the US Constitution, however they are the body which interprets the US Constitution.

Law is human made and is interpreted by humans.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

Ok....I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It wouldn't matter if we had a one party system if we obeyed the U.S. Constitution. Here you sit advocating that the federal government illegally involve themselves in education, and then you say we need to fix our voting system to fix America. If both Hilldabeast and that idiot Trump were properly restrained in the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them - those two idiots wouldn't be able to do any damage to us (and thus the other side wouldn't fear them getting in so much).

You know why both sides are both so paralyzed by fear over there other getting in? Because they wield near dictatorial-like power these days. And you know why? Because people like you support and cheer for it. The only thing that Trump and Hillary should be able to do as President is veto some bills, set foreign policy, and make decisions with regards to our military.

Well, again, does the US Congress have the power to raise taxes for the welfare of the USA or not?

How is it illegal for the US to spend money on the welfare of the country when it clearly states in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, that the govt can do this?

The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

That couldn't be more black and white. The phrase "general welfare" applies to their 18 enumerated powers only. And education is not one of their 18 enumerated powers. Are you willing to be a mature adult now and simply acknowledge that you were not properly informed about the supreme law of the land or are you going to grasp at more straws to make more absurd arguments?

And, as I have said, this is the federal govt, not running education, but using tax money (which article 1 section 8 gives them the power to raise) to promote welfare (which article 1 section 8 says the feds can spend this tax money on).

So where's the problem here?

Or do you deny the US federal govt has the power to raise taxes for and spend money on general welfare?

 

[P@triot]

I'm not interested in silly arguments about whether you think I thought this or that. Gay marriage is protected

Go look at Obergefell v. Hodges.

Both the Due process clause and Equal protection clause protect gay marriage.

That would be the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, just in case you want to look it up.

The Supreme Court isn't the US Constitution, however they are the body which interprets the US Constitution. Law is human made and is interpreted by humans.

This is so absurd and nonsensical it barely warrants a response. First of all - I asked for the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that made gay marriage legal. And then you give me a Supreme Court case?!?

Second - no where is the Supreme Court empowered to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution. Once again I challenge you to provide me with the article and section that grants any governoring body the autority over the U.S. Constitution. You can't do it. There is nothing to "interpret". It says exactly what it says in plain black & white.

 

[P@triot]

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

Ok....I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It wouldn't matter if we had a one party system if we obeyed the U.S. Constitution. Here you sit advocating that the federal government illegally involve themselves in education, and then you say we need to fix our voting system to fix America. If both Hilldabeast and that idiot Trump were properly restrained in the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them - those two idiots wouldn't be able to do any damage to us (and thus the other side wouldn't fear them getting in so much).

You know why both sides are both so paralyzed by fear over there other getting in? Because they wield near dictatorial-like power these days. And you know why? Because people like you support and cheer for it. The only thing that Trump and Hillary should be able to do as President is veto some bills, set foreign policy, and make decisions with regards to our military.

Well, again, does the US Congress have the power to raise taxes for the welfare of the USA or not?

How is it illegal for the US to spend money on the welfare of the country when it clearly states in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, that the govt can do this?

The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

That couldn't be more black and white. The phrase "general welfare" applies to their 18 enumerated powers only. And education is not one of their 18 enumerated powers. Are you willing to be a mature adult now and simply acknowledge that you were not properly informed about the supreme law of the land or are you going to grasp at more straws to make more absurd arguments?

And, as I have said, this is the federal govt, not running education, but using tax money (which article 1 section 8 gives them the power to raise) to promote welfare (which article 1 section 8 says the feds can spend this tax money on).

So where's the problem here?

Or do you deny the US federal govt has the power to raise taxes for and spend money on general welfare?

The problem is they are only allowed to tax and spend money on the 18 enumerated powers granted to them. What is so difficult about that for you? It couldn't be more simple. Did you completely skip over everything I just wrote?!?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not interested in silly arguments about whether you think I thought this or that. Gay marriage is protected

Go look at Obergefell v. Hodges.

Both the Due process clause and Equal protection clause protect gay marriage.

That would be the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, just in case you want to look it up.

The Supreme Court isn't the US Constitution, however they are the body which interprets the US Constitution. Law is human made and is interpreted by humans.

This is so absurd and nonsensical it barely warrants a response. First of all - I asked for the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that made gay marriage legal. And then you give me a Supreme Court case?!?

Second - no where is the Supreme Court empowered to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution. Once again I challenge you to provide me with the article and section that grants any governoring body the autority over the U.S. Constitution. You can't do it. There is nothing to "interpret". It says exactly what it says in plain black & white.

Actually I showed you a Supreme Court case that detailed the two parts of the Constitution where they stated (you know, Supreme Court justices, not you) where gay marriage is protected.
Maybe you're just not reading properly today.

Yes, the Supreme Court is EMPOWERED to interpret the constitution. It's in Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

If you think the Constitution is black and white, then I wonder where you've been for the last 200 years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

Ok....I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It wouldn't matter if we had a one party system if we obeyed the U.S. Constitution. Here you sit advocating that the federal government illegally involve themselves in education, and then you say we need to fix our voting system to fix America. If both Hilldabeast and that idiot Trump were properly restrained in the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them - those two idiots wouldn't be able to do any damage to us (and thus the other side wouldn't fear them getting in so much).

You know why both sides are both so paralyzed by fear over there other getting in? Because they wield near dictatorial-like power these days. And you know why? Because people like you support and cheer for it. The only thing that Trump and Hillary should be able to do as President is veto some bills, set foreign policy, and make decisions with regards to our military.

Well, again, does the US Congress have the power to raise taxes for the welfare of the USA or not?

How is it illegal for the US to spend money on the welfare of the country when it clearly states in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, that the govt can do this?

The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

That couldn't be more black and white. The phrase "general welfare" applies to their 18 enumerated powers only. And education is not one of their 18 enumerated powers. Are you willing to be a mature adult now and simply acknowledge that you were not properly informed about the supreme law of the land or are you going to grasp at more straws to make more absurd arguments?

And, as I have said, this is the federal govt, not running education, but using tax money (which article 1 section 8 gives them the power to raise) to promote welfare (which article 1 section 8 says the feds can spend this tax money on).

So where's the problem here?

Or do you deny the US federal govt has the power to raise taxes for and spend money on general welfare?

The problem is they are only allowed to tax and spend money on the 18 enumerated powers granted to them. What is so difficult about that for you? It couldn't be more simple. Did you completely skip over everything I just wrote?!?

And one of those powers is the power to "provide for the general welfare of the United States"

Don't you agree? I mean, IT'S WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not interested in silly arguments about whether you think I thought this or that. Gay marriage is protected

Go look at Obergefell v. Hodges.

Both the Due process clause and Equal protection clause protect gay marriage.

That would be the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, just in case you want to look it up.

The Supreme Court isn't the US Constitution, however they are the body which interprets the US Constitution. Law is human made and is interpreted by humans.

This is so absurd and nonsensical it barely warrants a response. First of all - I asked for the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that made gay marriage legal. And then you give me a Supreme Court case?!?

Second - no where is the Supreme Court empowered to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution. Once again I challenge you to provide me with the article and section that grants any governoring body the autority over the U.S. Constitution. You can't do it. There is nothing to "interpret". It says exactly what it says in plain black & white.

Actually I showed you a Supreme Court case that detailed the two parts of the Constitution where they stated (you know, Supreme Court justices, not you) where gay marriage is protected.
Maybe you're just not reading properly today.

Yes, the Supreme Court is EMPOWERED to interpret the constitution. It's in Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

If you think the Constitution is black and white, then I wonder where you've been for the last 200 years.

Yeah....judicial power. Not power over the U.S. Constitution. Your comment there is as absurd as saying my drivers license grants me a pilots license. Completely two separate things there. No where in the U.S. Constitution did it grant a governing body to decide what the document meant. After all - why the hell would it?!? Nobody leaves a legal document ambiguous for someone else to interpret the meaning of later. If the founders felt there was something that needed clarifcation, they wouldn't have granted other people in the future the power to decide what they wanted. They would have simply rewritten that section to clarify it. The funny yet sad part is that you know it's true. But years of ideological conditioning prevents you from brining yourself to admit it.

And all laws are black and white genius. If they weren't - if they were ambiguous in any way - then they could not be adhered to and thus nobody could be held accountable for them.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not interested in silly arguments about whether you think I thought this or that. Gay marriage is protected

Go look at Obergefell v. Hodges.

Both the Due process clause and Equal protection clause protect gay marriage.

That would be the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, just in case you want to look it up.

The Supreme Court isn't the US Constitution, however they are the body which interprets the US Constitution. Law is human made and is interpreted by humans.

This is so absurd and nonsensical it barely warrants a response. First of all - I asked for the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that made gay marriage legal. And then you give me a Supreme Court case?!?

Second - no where is the Supreme Court empowered to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution. Once again I challenge you to provide me with the article and section that grants any governoring body the autority over the U.S. Constitution. You can't do it. There is nothing to "interpret". It says exactly what it says in plain black & white.

Actually I showed you a Supreme Court case that detailed the two parts of the Constitution where they stated (you know, Supreme Court justices, not you) where gay marriage is protected.
Maybe you're just not reading properly today.

Yes, the Supreme Court is EMPOWERED to interpret the constitution. It's in Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

If you think the Constitution is black and white, then I wonder where you've been for the last 200 years.

Yeah....judicial power. Not power over the U.S. Constitution. Your comment there is as absurd as saying my drivers license grants me a pilots license. Completely two separate things there. No where in the U.S. Constitution did it grant a governing body to decide what the document meant. After all - why the hell would it?!? Nobody leaves a legal document ambiguous for someone else to interpret the meaning of later. If the founders felt there was something that needed clarifcation, they wouldn't have granted other people in the future the power to decide what they wanted. They would have simply rewritten that section to clarify it. The funny yet sad part is that you know it's true. But years of ideological conditioning prevents you from brining yourself to admit it.

And all laws are black and white genius. If they weren't - if they were ambiguous in any way - then they could not be adhered to and thus nobody could be held accountable for them.

What do you think judicial power is?

It's like saying "not apples, but apples"

If it's absurd, then you need to learn some stuff about what judicial power is.

If all laws are black and white, why do they have courts? Why have appeals? Why do cases get to the Supreme Court if they are so black and white?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 11h11 hours ago


72 years after #DDay, let's not just eulogize the brave men who gave their lives. Let's honor them by defending the values they fought for.

1,482 retweets 3,900 likes







Seems Hillary said the same thing.

Amazing how people will twist the facts, hey?

 

[P@triot]

This is one hell of an article. A must read about the punching and counter-punching strategies of the two candidates and the maniacal mindset of the anti-Trump zealots...

Dilbert Creator Endorses Hillary – Out of Fear for Personal Safety

 

[Vigilante]

 

[P@triot]

What do you think judicial power is?

To review and rule on laws as they apply to the U.S. Constitution. Not to decide what the Constitution itself says or doesn't say. A prime example is Obamacare. Congress created and passed the legislation which was outside of the power of the federal government (healthcare is not one of their 18 enumerated powers). The law is then challenged where it makes its way to the Supreme Court. The court rules on the Obamacare legislation. That is why they exist. That is their responsibility.

 

[P@triot]

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 11h11 hours ago


72 years after #DDay, let's not just eulogize the brave men who gave their lives. Let's honor them by defending the values they fought for.

1,482 retweets 3,900 likes







Seems Hillary said the same thing.

Amazing how people will twist the facts, hey?

Oh the irony....nobody has pissed on the values those brave men fought for more than Hillary. She's a pathological liar (I know damn well those men didn't die for the "value" of lying). She's a violated the U.S. Constitution (I know damn well those men didn't die for the "value" of violating the supreme law of the land). She's been involved in cover ups (I know damn well those men didn't die for the "value" of destroying government transparency).

 

[candycorn]

And how would you explain 2010 then? Let me guess, the rigged election in 2008 guys forgot how to rig elections in 2010 but some how remembered in 2012—remembered nationwide for example—.

Barack Obama didn't run for office in 2010 my dear...

So according to your tortured logic, he decided not to fix elections that would deliver him a congress that would give him anything he wanted?

Put Down the crack pipe for 3 seconds.

 

[Ame®icano]

Another cover up.

State Department Blocks Release Of Hillary Clinton-Era TPP Emails Until After The Election

Trade is a hot issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. But correspondence from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department aides about a controversial 12-nation trade deal will not be available for public review — at least not until after the election. The Obama administration abruptly blocked the release of Clinton’s State Department correspondence about the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), after first saying it expected to produce the emails this spring.

 

[Political Junky]

Well, Hillary knows the world and Trump doesn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you think judicial power is?

To review and rule on laws as they apply to the U.S. Constitution. Not to decide what the Constitution itself says or doesn't say. A prime example is Obamacare. Congress created and passed the legislation which was outside of the power of the federal government (healthcare is not one of their 18 enumerated powers). The law is then challenged where it makes its way to the Supreme Court. The court rules on the Obamacare legislation. That is why they exist. That is their responsibility.

How do you review and rule on laws if you can't interpret the laws?

If Congress make a law, they use words. If they use the words wrong then the Courts have to decide on whether the original meaning is relevant or whether the actual text is relevant and also what this text means.

US Supreme Court history is full or precedent.

For example the famous Heller case upheld the previous Presser case, which means that they accept that the ruling in Presser is how the Constitution should be interpreted and has been interpreted for 140 years.

Imagine a case goes to court and the Supreme Court saying "we have to make a judgement on this case using the Constitution but we're not allowed to decide what this means, therefore we can't do our jobs", it would be chaos.

Obamacare was written. It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides if it is constitutional or not by deciding what the constitution means and whether Obamacare goes against the constitution or not.

If it were so black and white justices would be voting 9-0 every time. The gay marriage case was 5-4. How is it that the TOP JUDGES in the country can't even decide on what the Constitution means and how it should be interpreted, but YOU have decided it's all black and white and they can't decide what it means.

Had the gay marriage case been 5-4 in the other direction, they'd clearly have decided it means something else. You can even go look at the case and see the difference in opinion of the Supreme Court justices and how they decided what the Constitution means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 11h11 hours ago


72 years after #DDay, let's not just eulogize the brave men who gave their lives. Let's honor them by defending the values they fought for.

1,482 retweets 3,900 likes







Seems Hillary said the same thing.

Amazing how people will twist the facts, hey?

Oh the irony....nobody has pissed on the values those brave men fought for more than Hillary. She's a pathological liar (I know damn well those men didn't die for the "value" of lying). She's a violated the U.S. Constitution (I know damn well those men didn't die for the "value" of violating the supreme law of the land). She's been involved in cover ups (I know damn well those men didn't die for the "value" of destroying government transparency).

Well, I'd say Bush Dubya pissed on those who fought more than Hillary. He sent them to war in order to make his buddies rich. None of his buddies came back dead or with body parts missing. They just ended up richer.

 

[P@triot]

And how would you explain 2010 then? Let me guess, the rigged election in 2008 guys forgot how to rig elections in 2010 but some how remembered in 2012—remembered nationwide for example—.

Barack Obama didn't run for office in 2010 my dear...

So according to your tortured logic, he decided not to fix elections that would deliver him a congress that would give him anything he wanted?

Um.....and why would he "need Congress"? Remember - he has a "pen and a phone" and mindless minions like you that support whatever unconstitutional actions he takes. He certainly didn't need Congress when he altered gun laws. He certainly didn't need Congress when he granted amnesty. He certainly didn't need Congress when he entered into "climate change" agreements. I could go on - but I think this is sufficient for illustrating the flaw in your argument.

By the way - I think there is one more important distinction to make. Obama has proven himself completely tone-deaf on everything from the geopolitical spectrum to national security to his constituents and more. Remember when Mitt Romney humiliated him in the debates on all of these issues and history has now proven Mitt right? Well - Obama was too stupid to see the ass-kicking coming. He was tone-deaf (as usual) when he pushed Obamacare against the outraged American people. Not that it would have mattered though. He wouldn't stick his neck out for anybody else other than himself. Especially since in his mind he doesn't need Congress. He ignores the U.S. Constitution just like you do.