Elizabeth Warren- NO MASS LAW LICENSE

[beretta304]

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.




Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

I have no idea what your issue is with my statements. I believe in a weak central government as did the founders.

Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why? You asked me a question and I referred to the reasoning behind why I posted as I did.

I know exactly what I posted and they are there for anyone to read. If they confuse you and I have not clarified them your liking I am sorry. Not much more I can state to make my point.

"Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why?"

An honest answer...she's thinks emphasis on "thinks" that she is brighter than all of us and that only her responses are correct. Sorry but with her...it is that simple. She's a lawyer, in her own mind and you mentioned the Constitution. Therefore you stepped on her turf. There sin't a subject that she won't tell you that she knows more about than you. All in less than 3 sentences and 4 words to a sentence.

 

[jillian]

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.




Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

I have no idea what your issue is with my statements. I believe in a weak central government as did the founders.

Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why? You asked me a question and I referred to the reasoning behind why I posted as I did.

I know exactly what I posted and they are there for anyone to read. If they confuse you and I have not clarified then your liking I am sorry. Not much more I can state to make my point.

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

 

[beretta304]

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

I have no idea what your issue is with my statements. I believe in a weak central government as did the founders.

Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why? You asked me a question and I referred to the reasoning behind why I posted as I did.

I know exactly what I posted and they are there for anyone to read. If they confuse you and I have not clarified then your liking I am sorry. Not much more I can state to make my point.

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

Rightwingnut..there it is. A two for one. Not a post goes by without it! Everything she doesn't agree with is "rightwingnut" oriented.

And she knows what the Founding Fathers wanted and meant too. They told her directly, I suppose.

 

[Listening]

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

The founders didn't want a weak central government.

They wanted a limited central government and that is what they designed. You morons don't know the difference.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

Bunkles....

The words of the constitution are the words of the constitution. Modifications take place through amendments. If what you said was true, the document would be meaningless. The recent ACA decisions shows just how precarious things are when the courts worry more about their legacy than they do the integrity of the document.

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

You really are a first class jackass. You constantly ascribe motives to others. It is clear you are a paid schill for some slobbering leftwinger.

While we might be high-fiving each other....your side is one constant daisy-chain.

 

[Listening]

what are you blathering about, nutbar?

almost a response, though. i'm sorry you don't know enough to actually have a discussion with anyone. "

you're the one who should be ashamed...for lying compulsively.

Reading comprehension issues...still ?

It's really quite simple.

You post nothing of substance and never have.

And generally, you do a us favor by keeping your posts under 50 words.

When you want to argue something, please let me know.

What is shameful is that people like you were actually allowed out of high school even though you obviously don't meet any of the minimum requirements for graduation.

that's kind of funny coming from you.

i post a factual response and you come back with your usual useless twittery...

and you want a response that doesn't tell you what a moron you are?

lol.. that's kinda rich.

go back to your job at the gas station... mmmkay.

Factual response.....

Your idea of a factual response is telling someone they do things for the wrong reasons.

You are always good for a laugh (in less than 50 words no less).

 

[beretta304]

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

The founders didn't want a weak central government.

They wanted a limited central government and that is what they designed. You morons don't know the difference.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

Bunkles....

The words of the constitution are the words of the constitution. Modifications take place through amendments. If what you said was true, the document would be meaningless. The recent ACA decisions shows just how precarious things are when the courts worry more about their legacy than they do the integrity of the document.

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

You really are a first class jackass. You constantly ascribe motives to others. It is clear you are a paid schill for some slobbering leftwinger.

While we might be high-fiving each other....your side is one constant daisy-chain.

Careful there you rightwingnutter. How dare you make sense and use facts.

 

[Listening]

I have no idea what your issue is with my statements. I believe in a weak central government as did the founders.

Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why? You asked me a question and I referred to the reasoning behind why I posted as I did.

I know exactly what I posted and they are there for anyone to read. If they confuse you and I have not clarified then your liking I am sorry. Not much more I can state to make my point.

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

Rightwingnut..there it is. A two for one. Not a post goes by without it! Everything she doesn't agree with is "rightwingnut" oriented.

And she knows what the Founding Fathers wanted and meant too. They told her directly, I suppose.

She's an ignorant left wing drone. I get a kick out of her claim that she posts facts.

 

[Dreamy]

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

I have no idea what your issue is with my statements. I believe in a weak central government as did the founders.

Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why? You asked me a question and I referred to the reasoning behind why I posted as I did.

I know exactly what I posted and they are there for anyone to read. If they confuse you and I have not clarified then your liking I am sorry. Not much more I can state to make my point.

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

Not a rightwinger. Not looking for high fives. Just answering your questions as it related to my earlier post. Let Jefferson and Henry state it better than I.

“…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson


“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

​

I am parroting nothing. The fact is the founders did set up the Federal government to be weak. That is not a right point or a left point to people except maybe partisan hacks which exist on both sides of the modern day political aisle.


Yes the USC came after the Articles of the Confederation but it was created to keep the GOVERNMENT in check not the people.

 

[Dreamy]

I am using the term weak or weaker Fed goverment which in truth, as someone said above, I should use the word limited. Sorry. I mean weaker than the States but yes limited is a better description.

 

[beretta304]

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

Rightwingnut..there it is. A two for one. Not a post goes by without it! Everything she doesn't agree with is "rightwingnut" oriented.

And she knows what the Founding Fathers wanted and meant too. They told her directly, I suppose.

She's an ignorant left wing drone. I get a kick out of her claim that she posts facts.

I've seen her bitch-slapped here so many times that my face hurts from it.

 

[Conservative]

Rightwingnut..there it is. A two for one. Not a post goes by without it! Everything she doesn't agree with is "rightwingnut" oriented.

And she knows what the Founding Fathers wanted and meant too. They told her directly, I suppose.

She's an ignorant left wing drone. I get a kick out of her claim that she posts facts.

I've seen her bitch-slapped here so many times that my face hurts from it

then stop bitch slapping her with your face

 

[beretta304]

She's an ignorant left wing drone. I get a kick out of her claim that she posts facts.

I've seen her bitch-slapped here so many times that my face hurts from it

then stop bitch slapping her with your face

Good one. I doubt she'll get that either.

 

[jillian]

"caselaw analysis" "

Rich coming from the phony lawyer.

you wish, troll...

you up to about 350 threads yet?

Count 'em bitch and let me know. Don't want to "fall short" like your replies do.

you know, i'm actually starting to feel badly for you. so pathetic that you've done about 300 threads since mid-august...begging me not to call you what you are... and then tantruming when i continue to make fun of you for the loser you are.

but keep calling me names. it's ok... from a lowlife like you who who has nothing to do but harass people on a messageboard it doesn't matter anyway. *shrug*

 

[jillian]

She's an ignorant left wing drone. I get a kick out of her claim that she posts facts.

I've seen her bitch-slapped here so many times that my face hurts from it

then stop bitch slapping her with your face

i think they're bitch slapping themselves, because they've never once gotten me. but they can fantasize... makes me no never mind.

 

[jillian]

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

The founders didn't want a weak central government.

They wanted a limited central government and that is what they designed. You morons don't know the difference.

the words of the constitution only have meaning in conjunction with the caselaw construing it. marbury v madison sound familiar to you?

Bunkles....

The words of the constitution are the words of the constitution. Modifications take place through amendments. If what you said was true, the document would be meaningless. The recent ACA decisions shows just how precarious things are when the courts worry more about their legacy than they do the integrity of the document.

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

You really are a first class jackass. You constantly ascribe motives to others. It is clear you are a paid schill for some slobbering leftwinger.

While we might be high-fiving each other....your side is one constant daisy-chain.

i'll just assume you don't have a clue what i post to people who are actually capable of discussion...

as for you...

meh.

 

[Listening]

i'm trying to explain to you that if the founders had wanted a weak central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. we don't. because the weak central government concept didn't work.

The founders didn't want a weak central government.

They wanted a limited central government and that is what they designed. You morons don't know the difference.



Bunkles....

The words of the constitution are the words of the constitution. Modifications take place through amendments. If what you said was true, the document would be meaningless. The recent ACA decisions shows just how precarious things are when the courts worry more about their legacy than they do the integrity of the document.

you haven't 'confused' me... you just keep parroting rightwingnut talking points and clearly don't know and don't want to know anything.

and that, ultimately, is my probllem with your responses.

don't worry, though... the board is infested with rightwingnut hacks who will high five you all day long.

You really are a first class jackass. You constantly ascribe motives to others. It is clear you are a paid schill for some slobbering leftwinger.

While we might be high-fiving each other....your side is one constant daisy-chain.

i'll just assume you don't have a clue what i post to people who are actually capable of discussion...

as for you...

meh.

You bet, Schillian....

I don't see where you engage people in discussion.

Because you don't.

Now why don't you elaborat on your bubble gum card constitutional knowledge. Let's hear it.

Marbury vs. Madison was not case law. Marshall ruled in behalf of Madison. It was in his dicta he claimed final judicial review. Andrew Jackson later set the tone most presidents have sometimes followed (you said it...now enforce it). So it's never consistent. But the constitution is consistent.

Al Gore was full of crap when he called it a "living" document. That we have lefties who don't know the difference is my problem because they've pretty much been doing what Obama now does...wipes his ass with it.

 

[del]

i can only say that i wish i had a cool lord of the rings ring for an an avi, and couldn't spell difficult words like *shill*, just like glistening.

because that would be, like, totally cool and shit.

then people would be believe i was like a total constitutional scholar

asshat

 

[American_Jihad]

Something important is happening in Massachusetts

Thomas Lifson
October 9, 2012


The Senate race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren is being shaped by the efforts of a blogger, Professor William Jacobson, of Legal Insurrection. This very high profile race reveals how important the internet has become to political discourse. Once upon a time, only newspapers could launch inquiries and crusades that determined the fate of powerful politicians, but now a single, intelligent, skilled, and determined individual like Jacobson can take on the might of the liberal establishment in Massachusetts, arguably the state most dominated by the academic and machine Democrat factions of the left, and give them a serious fight.

As most readers of AT know, Legal Insurrection has been pressing the inquiry into Elizabeth Warren's claims of Native American ancestry, which preceded her leap into the major leagues of American legal education. More recently, Jacobson discovered that when she moved to Massachusetts to join the Harvard faculty, Warren never bothered to acquire a license to practice law. Many law professors, Warren included, have a lucrative side business as consultants, often writing briefs.

What happened next was a classic left wing move: generation of a meme that would enable the media establishment to ignore the scandal as discredited. For instance, in 1992, when Bill Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers provided the tapes of Bill Clinton's phone calls to her, the campaign hired LA private eye (and subsequent guest of the Federal Bureau of Prisons) Anthony Pellicano to declare the tapes "doctored." He was cited as an "expert" by the media, which then refused to even consider the philandering behavior which was to prove so imporant to his second term in office.

In Warren's legal license case, an even more devious approach was taken. From Legal Insurrection:

---


Thanks to the internet, unlike 1992, we can push back on the feints intended to bury stories. And thanks to the tenacious and skilful research of William Jacobson, those implicated in the media manipulation face some accountability, if only public shame, and possibly more.

The times, they are a changin'.

Read more: Blog: Something important is happening in Massachusetts

 

[rightwinger]

Senators do not need a law license

 

[Mad Scientist]

Senators do not need a law license

But Lawyers do. She hyped her Lawyer creds in the campaign and you Libs bought it, refused to see.