Founding fathers were village idiots.

[Dante]

This is the site where this OAF wrote this...

www.prisoners.com is a nonprofit corporation of education, information and charity. Our mission is to benefit the 120,000+ state, local and federal prisoners in Pennsylvania, their families and loved ones. Further, we aim to assist prisoners everywhere.

I'd say this guy has a record, and quite an AXE to grind.

You've found a group to take up your cause?


bravo, bravo, bravo,

What the **** are you babbling about Dante? OUT with it HERE and NOW.

I thought you being a prisoner of your own delusions...

 

[Dante]

The federal government is never impartial in the case of its own power, and the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. Jefferson knew this:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers."

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

You may quote Jefferson all you like. It still does not address the Judicial Activism that you seem the courts role is. They were to remain Impartial and rule on LAW, and such law as prescribed in the Constitution.

They weren't supposed to be siding on the latest cause celeb. That was left to the Legislative/Executive Branches.

You have a rather twisted view of the court. And inheriently WRONG.

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.

But Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

 

[The T]

You've found a group to take up your cause?


bravo, bravo, bravo,

What the **** are you babbling about Dante? OUT with it HERE and NOW.

I thought you being a prisoner of your own delusions...

If your sigline and your posts are any indicator? I'd rather think YOU should be pointing at yourself, and having consulatations with the nearest mirror.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, the Constitution does not allow for it and the Supreme Court said so in the 1859 case of Ableman v. Booth. But then, you apparently think all federal courts of any kind are invalid so just go right ahead and keep on making up your own legal doctrines out of thin air.

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.

It has a storied history of being rejected. See Ableman v. Booth mentioned above, not to mention every single other time its ever been attempted. No federal law has been nullified by a state.......ever.

Really? Jefferson's embargo against Great Britain wasn't nullified by the New England states? National ID wasn't essentially nullified by the states when they simply refused to enforce it? Marijuana laws haven't been nullified throughout the years by several states?

 

[jillian]

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You may quote Jefferson all you like. It still does not address the Judicial Activism that you seem the courts role is. They were to remain Impartial and rule on LAW, and such law as prescribed in the Constitution.

They weren't supposed to be siding on the latest cause celeb. That was left to the Legislative/Executive Branches.

You have a rather twisted view of the court. And inheriently WRONG.

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.

Obama? Is that YOU?

You are wrong on so many levels. If yours is the case, then it should be dissolved.

Way to prove that I'm wrong on so many levels.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You may quote Jefferson all you like. It still does not address the Judicial Activism that you seem the courts role is. They were to remain Impartial and rule on LAW, and such law as prescribed in the Constitution.

They weren't supposed to be siding on the latest cause celeb. That was left to the Legislative/Executive Branches.

You have a rather twisted view of the court. And inheriently WRONG.

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.

But Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

Very true. James Madison, on the other hand, is known as the "Father of the Constitution," and he authored the Virginia Resolutions in conjunction with Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Virginia Resolution of 1798

The "Father of the Constitution" supporting nullification, I'll be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

 

[Dante]

What the **** are you babbling about Dante? OUT with it HERE and NOW.

I thought you being a prisoner of your own delusions...

If your sigline and your posts are any indicator? I'd rather think YOU should be pointing at yourself, and having consulatations with the nearest mirror.

You think---therein lies your problem. Stop taxing your mind and freedom will come.

 

[jillian]

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

it's not an infatuation, dear. i just really dislike when people pretend to know things they know nothing about. constitutional scholars have disagreed for over two hundred years and you think you're the final word on the subject?

if you were a mechanic, i'd defer to you when it came to my transmission and i wouldn't pretend to be able to rebuild one.

and i'm sorry it pains you to be told you make yourself look foolish.

 

[Dante]

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.

But Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

Very true. James Madison, on the other hand, is known as the "Father of the Constitution," and he authored the Virginia Resolutions in conjunction with Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Virginia Resolution of 1798

The "Father of the Constitution" supporting nullification, I'll be.

Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

 

[The T]

It doesn't matter what the court's role is supposed to be, but rather what it is. And all the court has ever shown it is capable of is "judicial activism." That is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, and supported nullification.

Obama? Is that YOU?

You are wrong on so many levels. If yours is the case, then it should be dissolved.

Way to prove that I'm wrong on so many levels.

You spout what it has Become...NOT what is is supposed to be.

 

[The T]

I thought you being a prisoner of your own delusions...

If your sigline and your posts are any indicator? I'd rather think YOU should be pointing at yourself, and having consulatations with the nearest mirror.

You think---therein lies your problem. Stop taxing your mind and freedom will come.

You knee-jerk react. Most of what you post is based upon just that. But plod on. I won't stop you...criminal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

it's not an infatuation, dear. i just really dislike when people pretend to know things they know nothing about.

if you were a mechanic, i'd defer to you when it came to my transmission an i wouldn't pretend to be able to rebuild one.

Your analogy falls flat for a very simple reason. A mechanic must learn their trade, and it's a specialized trade. Not everyone learns how to be a mechanic. However, while it's true that not everyone can read, most people are taught to read this day and age. I happen to be among them, so reading the Constitution doesn't pose a challenge to me.

However, you continually like to call me arrogant for having an opinion on the Constitution, but I would suggest that the only arrogance on display is coming from you for thinking that nobody can understand the Constitution without a law degree. Get real.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

Very true. James Madison, on the other hand, is known as the "Father of the Constitution," and he authored the Virginia Resolutions in conjunction with Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Virginia Resolution of 1798

The "Father of the Constitution" supporting nullification, I'll be.

Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Obama? Is that YOU?

You are wrong on so many levels. If yours is the case, then it should be dissolved.

Way to prove that I'm wrong on so many levels.

You spout what it has Become...NOT what is is supposed to be.

No, I "spout" what it has always been, which is indeed not what it was supposed to be. But that's the problem.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah. We really should have had Native Americans, women, single moms, Marxists, and maybe a gay black WAC with a bad leg participating in the writing of the Constitution.

If we hadn't left it to a few old white guys to write, instead of the Constitutional document that was so brilliantly conceived and so magnificent in its simplicty, we might have a 2200 page tomb of the clarity and coherence similar to the healthcare legislation that was just passed.

Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781. It was a long and arduous process.

Actually, it wasn't ratified until June 1788...

 

[jillian]

Very true. James Madison, on the other hand, is known as the "Father of the Constitution," and he authored the Virginia Resolutions in conjunction with Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions.



Virginia Resolution of 1798

The "Father of the Constitution" supporting nullification, I'll be.

Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

see, you get all cranky and insulted when it's pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. but you don't know what you're talking about.

the comments of politicians of the day have no more meaning than comments of politicians today.

the only thing that matters are the interpretations made by the Court.

go learn about marbury v madison.

but seriously... until you do, you really have no business making the assertions you do.

 

[Dante]

If your sigline and your posts are any indicator? I'd rather think YOU should be pointing at yourself, and having consulatations with the nearest mirror.

You think---therein lies your problem. Stop taxing your mind and freedom will come.

You knee-jerk react. Most of what you post is based upon just that. But plod on. I won't stop you...criminal.

knee jerk reaction is your ideology

criminal? I prefer convict.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

see, you get all cranky and insulted when it's pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. but you don't know what you're talking about.

the comments of politicians of the day have no more meaning than comments of politicians today.

the only thing that matters are the interpretations made by the Court.

go learn about marbury v madison.

but seriously... until you do, you really have no business making the assertions you do.

lol.

If you and I enter into a contract, with the plain meaning of the contract clear to both of us, and then tell you that it means something else afterwards is that contract enforceable to what I said it is after the fact? I don't have a law degree, so maybe I do have that wrong.