It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[Skylar]

What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?

Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".

Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.

Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.

It is a socialist unconstitutional scam

.

So far its withstood any constitutional challenge. And clearly 'by any means necessary' doesn't include any violent action. As you'd have to put down the beer and pizza rolls long enough to wage it. And we both know that's not going to happen.

WE THE PEOPLE are the guardians of the Constitution (1787).

You're not 'The People', Cont.

May I remind you that individuals are nominated to the SCOTUS who are socialists, fascists, government supremacists so WE THE PEOPLE are denied judicial review by an Article III Court.

Like the constitution says that direct taxes are only legal in emergencies?

May I remind you that we can actually read the constitution. And no one's eligibility to be a Supreme Court justice is predicated on whatever labels you apply to them.

As you're nobody.

Secondly , because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL seventeenth Amendment the Senate is now another House of Representatives.

How is a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? May I remind you that a constitutional amendment IS the constitution.

You....you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

I understand than in Orwellian terms ONLY socialists, fascists and state supremacists are "the people", that is typical of all tyrannies. The dissenters have no rights the tyrannical majority has to recognize.

You apparently don't understand that you're not 'The People'. Or that you applying a random label to someone has exactly jack shit to do with their eligibility to be a Supreme Court Justice.

As you're nobody.

See how that works?

 

[AceRothstein]

I think this OP received a record number of "funny" ratings. I don't think that is what the OP was going for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.

I know you get a 'dumbfuck treat" when you sit up pretty and bleat the words your masters train you to bleat.

But conspiracy is not the correct term. Debbie Schultz is not a "conspiracy," she is in fact the chairman of your shameful party.

Likewise Soros is not some figment of anyone's imagination, but the owner of the filthy democratic - socialist party.

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution

You should learn to read.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.

I know you get a 'dumbfuck treat" when you sit up pretty and bleat the words your masters train you to bleat.

But conspiracy is not the correct term. Debbie Schultz is not a "conspiracy," she is in fact the chairman of your shameful party.

Likewise Soros is not some figment of anyone's imagination, but the owner of the filthy democratic - socialist party.

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution

You should learn to read.

And where is the constitutional definition of 'probable cause'? 'Cruel and usual'? 'Natural born'? 'Needful' buildings?

If the constitution needs no interpretation then it should be remarkably easy for you to show us the direct constitutional definitions....without interpretation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.

What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.

 

[Skylar]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.

What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.

I suspect you can't show us a constitutional definition for any of these terms. So you're giving us excuses why you can't.

And if the constitution doesn't need any interpretation.......why then did the Founders indicate that the role of the judiciary to to interpret the meaning of the constitution?

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

Let me guess....Alexander Hamilton didn't understand the constitution either, huh?

 

[Faun]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.

What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.

Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution to you fascists is just something you like to wrap yourself up to excuse attacking others.

What does the Constitution mean, Comrade?

1. Exactly what it says. It's plain English, read the fucking thing.
2. Exactly what the SCOTUS wants it to say at any given second; the text is irrelevant.
3. The constitution is not compatible with progressive rule so is ignored.
4. Both 2 and 3

PLAIN ENGLISH? SUCH AS:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
​

What limit is imposed on the phrase "common defence"?

• common means prevalent, thus
  • Disease
  • Invasion

Defense means to protect. Thus COTUS provides the Congress the power to collect taxes to fund our military and preventative medicine.

Example of PLAIN ENGLISH!

What limit is imposed on the phrase "general Welfare"?

"general" affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread; and,

"welfare" the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group; thus PLAIN ENGLISH defines the general Welfare as a power of The Congress to collect taxes to protect the citizens of the united states from all enemies foreign, domestic, bacterial or viral.

So simple even a child can understand it.

While you are agenda driven to support Obama's fascist care, "common defense" is a know quantity, which is not what your master's at KOS claim.

James Madison in his federalist essays “the operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger."

So one could point to epidemics as a form of danger, hence the basis for the CDC. But this is not what you or your masters are attempting to justify, now is it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And where is the constitutional definition of 'probable cause'? 'Cruel and usual'? 'Natural born'? 'Needful' buildings?

So your argument is that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

How unique.

If the constitution needs no interpretation then it should be remarkably easy for you to show us the direct constitutional definitions....without interpretation.

No doubt you imagine yourself clever in building a straw man. You're not. In any document of substance will be room for interpretation and debate, which is why we have courts. What is "exceeding the speed limit?" .0001%? 10%? In law this falls to the "reasonable man."

Because there is room for interpretation does not render the Constitution null and void as you socialists demand, the word of unelected justices does not trump the actual text of the document.

{"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451}

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...

At the writing of the COTUS, the term meant one born on US Soil. Since then it has morphed to mean those born to US citizens.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.

A " Constitution [which] exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court," does not exist at all. If the utterance of 9 dictators is the only law, then the existence of laws or Constitutions is merely a farce imposed upon and enslaved people.

 

[Skylar]

And where is the constitutional definition of 'probable cause'? 'Cruel and usual'? 'Natural born'? 'Needful' buildings?

So your argument is that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

How unique.

More accurately, I'm asking you to show me the constitutional definition of 'probable cause', 'cruel and unusual', and 'natural born citizen'.

And you're predictably giving me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: there are no such definitions. They're judicial interpretations. Exactly as founders intended:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

Unless you're arguing that Hamilton didn't understand the constitution, your 'no interpretation necessary' argument is DOA. Interpretation is not only necessary, its quite vital.

 

[Skylar]

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.

Nonsense. The judiciary is fulfilling its intended role.

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

The courts have not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law at odds with it created by the legislatures.

Which is exactly what they were intended to do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More accurately, I'm asking you to show me the constitutional definition of 'probable cause', 'cruel and unusual', and 'natural born citizen'.

Yes, you seek to parse common language in order to obfuscate clear meaning.

I understood what you sought.

And you're predictably giving me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: there are no such definitions. They're judicial interpretations. Exactly as founders intended:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

Unless you're arguing that Hamilton didn't understand the constitution, your 'no interpretation necessary' argument is DOA. Interpretation is not only necessary, its quite vital.

Hamilton sought a supreme central government. He did not prevail through the constitution so your appeal to authority is dubious at best.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.

Nonsense. The judiciary is fulfilling its intended role.

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

The courts have not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law at odds with it created by the legislatures.

Which is exactly what they were intended to do.

It's intended role as supreme ruler?

Intended by whom?

Certainly not Jefferson, Mason, or other liberty minded patriots.

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, I'm asking you to show me the constitutional definition of 'probable cause', 'cruel and unusual', and 'natural born citizen'.

Yes, you seek to parse common language in order to obfuscate clear meaning.

I understood what you sought.

And more excuses. How...predictable. Meanwhile, my simple request sends you running with your tail tucked firmly between your legs:

Please show me the constitutional definition of 'probable cause', 'cruel and unusual', and 'natural born citizen'.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to run.

Hamilton sought a supreme central government. He did not prevail through the constitution so your appeal to authority is dubious at best.

Hamilton sought a stronger central government. He and Madison making their case for what that government would do and what powers it would have in the Federalist Papers.

Why would I ignore the Federalist Papers on the role of the judiciary....and instead believe you?

Um, you're nobody.

 

[Skylar]

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.

Nonsense. The judiciary is fulfilling its intended role.

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

The courts have not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law at odds with it created by the legislatures.

Which is exactly what they were intended to do.

It's intended role as supreme ruler?

Intended by whom?

Certainly not Jefferson, Mason, or other liberty minded patriots.

It intended role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. With the judiciary having the duty to place the constitution above any law at irreconcilable variance with it.

If congress (or a state after the 14th amendment) create a law at odds with the constitution, the constitution wins. The Supremacy Clause affirms the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.

What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.

COTUS does not say S&S is unreasonable without a warrant.

Q. Why does Uncensored2008 lie

A. The truth is his enemy, if he were required to post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth he would be struck silent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...

At the writing of the COTUS, the term meant one born on US Soil. Since then it has morphed to mean those born to US citizens.

A lie by omission, or simply ignorance ^^^?

The Amendments to COTUS are part of the Constitution, not some morphed irrelevancy. If they are, then the 2nd A. has morphed too.

 

[Faun]

Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...

At the writing of the COTUS, the term meant one born on US Soil. Since then it has morphed to mean those born to US citizens.

Based upon what was that the meaning of that phrase when quill inked our sacred parchment?