More bad news for Obama liberals: Constitution is this year’s big best-seller

[Dante]

???
Why would you want to buy a copy of the Constitution. It's a public document and if it wasn't it'd be public domain by now. I can find a copy of it online and order it be printed within minutes.

Why?

because...

Republicans are so ******* incmpetant[sic] a 4 year old can out think them...

 

[Cuyo]

???
Why would you want to buy a copy of the Constitution. It's a public document and if it wasn't it'd be public domain by now. I can find a copy of it online and order it be printed within minutes.

Because certain people have a lust for elevating themselves above others, being "In the know," harboring the belief that they know more than the next guy about anything-- For conservative dopes, the constitution... The united states constitution (tear rolls down eye)... Is the flavor of the week.

Having a bound copy satisfies their insecurities, despite typically having zero understanding of law or the construct of our government.

 

[Flopper]

Demand for copies of the U.S. Constitution is skyrocketing.
The increased interest comes amid the rise of the Tea Party movement and as both parties cite the Constitution to advance their agendas.

The pocket edition of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence ranked 10th on the Government Printing Office’s (GPO) best-seller list in March.


Since September 2009, the GPO has sold more than 8,700 copies of the pocket Constitution to the public, according to GPO spokesman Gary Somerset. That is a higher sell rate than in recent years.


Those sales are in addition to the thousands of copies given to members of Congress each year. Congress authorized a resolution in 2009 to print 441,000 copies for the use of the House (1,000 for each member) and 100,000 copies for the Senate (1,000 for each senator).

Constitution is this year?s big best-seller - TheHill.com

Liberals are SURE not going to like that. They want us to believe in the Constitution being a "living document" as Al Gore called it. What's the translation for that one?

It means the Constitution means anything liberals say it does.

They don't want people actually READING the constitution. They might notice things like there IS a 2nd Amendment in there or there are no words like "separation of church and state."

Hey! We can't have that!

What about that 10th Amendment????? People might find out Arizona is perfectly within their rights to have enforce immigration laws.

OH WE DEFINITELY CAN'T HAVE THAT!

More stuff for liberals to worry about, and more stuff for me to smile about.

8700 copies sold in 9 mos. Gee, that's about a thousand a month. The typical NY Times best selling non-fiction will sell sell at least a 100,000/mo.

 

[The T]

How are they being ignored?

We have a dilligent court system that ensures the constitution is adhered to. Ever hear of checks and balances?

Just because rightwing doctrine has been ignored by the newly elected congress doesn't make it unconstitutional. You need the courts to do that

Good luck

You mean the same courts that more oft than not subscribe to Social engineerng by the Government? Legislating from the Bench ring a bell?
Not any Conservative Judges I'm aware of subscribe to your projections.

Or are you off-continent and speaking EU or some ofhter Despotic Government?

Check and Balances eh? You don't know the meaning sir, much less the Constitution itself.

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The courts are replete with such violations...and telling the people they have no standing...even if such standing was from the legislative process.


Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases, wherein four California Supreme Court justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the liberal judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the liberal homosexual assault on marriage before it was too late.
Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' Constitutionally mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in Bush v. Gore, Boy Scouts v. Dale, and D.C. v. Heller.

SOURCE

_________________

And it aptly demonstrates why the Courts are the Most despotic branch of the Government.

 

[rightwinger]

???
Why would you want to buy a copy of the Constitution. It's a public document and if it wasn't it'd be public domain by now. I can find a copy of it online and order it be printed within minutes.

Because certain people have a lust for elevating themselves above others, being "In the know," harboring the belief that they know more than the next guy about anything-- For conservative dopes, the constitution... The united states constitution (tear rolls down eye)... Is the flavor of the week.

Having a bound copy satisfies their insecurities, despite typically having zero understanding of law or the construct of our government.

None of them have read it....very few Americans have

They just like to wave it

 

[rightwinger]

You mean the same courts that more oft than not subscribe to Social engineerng by the Government? Legislating from the Bench ring a bell?
Not any Conservative Judges I'm aware of subscribe to your projections.

Or are you off-continent and speaking EU or some ofhter Despotic Government?

Check and Balances eh? You don't know the meaning sir, much less the Constitution itself.

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The courts are replete with such violations...and telling the people they have no standing...even if such standing was from the legislative process.


Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases, wherein four California Supreme Court justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the liberal judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the liberal homosexual assault on marriage before it was too late.
Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' Constitutionally mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in Bush v. Gore, Boy Scouts v. Dale, and D.C. v. Heller.

SOURCE

_________________

And it aptly demonstrates why the Courts are the Most despotic branch of the Government.

Wow...


Those are groundbreaking court decisions. Hard to believe that any real American would be opposed to them

 

[AllieBaba]

Most Americans are opposed to them.

Judges aren't supposed to make laws. They enforce them. The people make laws.

 

[Cuyo]

You mean the same courts that more oft than not subscribe to Social engineerng by the Government? Legislating from the Bench ring a bell?
Not any Conservative Judges I'm aware of subscribe to your projections.

Or are you off-continent and speaking EU or some ofhter Despotic Government?

Check and Balances eh? You don't know the meaning sir, much less the Constitution itself.

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The courts are replete with such violations...and telling the people they have no standing...even if such standing was from the legislative process.


Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases, wherein four California Supreme Court justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the liberal judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the liberal homosexual assault on marriage before it was too late.
Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' Constitutionally mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in Bush v. Gore, Boy Scouts v. Dale, and D.C. v. Heller.

SOURCE

_________________

And it aptly demonstrates why the Courts are the Most despotic branch of the Government.

You like that word despotic now, don't you? Is that, like your new "Thing," we're not saying STATIST in every post, now it's DESPOTIC?

Yes your examples are not the supreme court making laws as you imply, they're the supreme court ruling existing laws unconstitutional, and therefore illegal to practice. That's part of their job, Amigo, and since all the rulings you post struck down laws that infringe upon civil liberties, a small non-overbearing government fella like yourself should agree with every one of them.

 

[Cuyo]

Most Americans are opposed to them.

Judges aren't supposed to make laws. They enforce them. The people make laws.

Read above. They didn't make new laws in these cases. They ruled existing laws unconstitutional. THAT'S THEIR JOB.

And... Most American's are against what? The SCOTUS rulings he posted? Are you on Crack?

 

[The T]

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The courts are replete with such violations...and telling the people they have no standing...even if such standing was from the legislative process.


Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases, wherein four California Supreme Court justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the liberal judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the liberal homosexual assault on marriage before it was too late.
Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' Constitutionally mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in Bush v. Gore, Boy Scouts v. Dale, and D.C. v. Heller.

SOURCE

_________________

And it aptly demonstrates why the Courts are the Most despotic branch of the Government.

You like that word despotic now, don't you? Is that, like your new "Thing," we're not saying STATIST in every post, now it's DESPOTIC?

Yes your examples are not the supreme court making laws as you imply, they're the supreme court ruling existing laws unconstitutional, and therefore illegal to practice. That's part of their job, Amigo, and since all the rulings you post struck down laws that infringe upon civil liberties, a small non-overbearing government fella like yourself should agree with every one of them.

When they describe aptly what we are facing? You're damed correct I use them. To do otherwise would be sugarcoat. Homey don't play that.

 

[Cuyo]

When they describe aptly what we are facing? You're damed correct I use them. To do otherwise would be sugarcoat. Homey don't play that.

Haven't listened to Levin lately, but I'll bet dollars-to-donuts he's been referring to things as "Despotic" or "A Despotism."

The word really does not fit, and I've never heard it used as the adjective "Despotic" before. But again over analyzing your posts never got me too far before.

So what words would you use to describe SCOTUS ruling that schools must be desegregated, contraceptives and abortion may not be outlawed by the States, nor can they outlaw anal sex or inter-racial marriage?

 

[rightwinger]

Most Americans are opposed to them.

Judges aren't supposed to make laws. They enforce them. The people make laws.

Most Americans oppose allowing Blacks into their schools? They oppose contraception? They oppose allowing blacks and whites to marry?

Which country do you live in?

 

[Sheldon]

Most Americans are opposed to them.

Judges aren't supposed to make laws. They enforce them. The people make laws.

You're right, judges don't make laws

You're wrong, judges do not enforce laws

Judges judge the legality of laws based on precedent and a shifting scope of constitutional interpretation that is not beholden to popular sentiment

 

[goldcatt]

Point of order.

T, you mis-cited Lawrence.

Lawrence v. Texas did not say sodomy cannot be illegal. It said if you're going to make sodomy a crime, it has to be a crime for everyone and cannot just target male homosexuals. A subtle but very important difference.

Here's the full case, unedited. Knock yourself out:

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

THIS is what I mean by relying on irresponsible secondary sources.

 

[Father Time]

You mean the same courts that more oft than not subscribe to Social engineerng by the Government? Legislating from the Bench ring a bell?
Not any Conservative Judges I'm aware of subscribe to your projections.

Or are you off-continent and speaking EU or some ofhter Despotic Government?

Check and Balances eh? You don't know the meaning sir, much less the Constitution itself.

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The laws violated the 9th and the 14th.

In fact here's the text of the 9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It means that the fed (and since then the states) do not have an unlimited right to **** with citizens so long as they don't violate the other amendments.

Things like contraception fall under that right.

EDIT: I just realized all his links are conservapedia, probably the least trustworthy source on the entire internet.

 

[boedicca]

Most Americans are opposed to them.

Judges aren't supposed to make laws. They enforce them. The people make laws.

Actually, judges are supposed to interpret laws. The legislative branch passes them; the executive enforces them.

 

[Father Time]

Most Americans are opposed to them.

Judges aren't supposed to make laws. They enforce them. The people make laws.

A. Besides Roe v. Wade prove that most Americans are against those laws.
B. The courts don't make laws they just throw out laws as being unconstitutional.

 

[hyakku]

Ummm, maybe I'm confused, but doesnt this article say its number TEN on some small government list?

It's only sold nearly 9,000 copies since sept. 09, so either book sales have plummeted since the last Harry Potter, or something's not write about the title of this thread.

Either way, let's hope more people read the Constitution, I could certainly do with some review.

 

[Dante]

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The laws violated the 9th and the 14th.

In fact here's the text of the 9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It means that the fed (and since then the states) do not have an unlimited right to **** with citizens so long as they don't violate the other amendments.

Things like contraception fall under that right.

EDIT: I just realized all his links are conservapedia, probably the least trustworthy source on the entire internet.

thank you

---

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service:
Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers

 

[goldcatt]

"legislating from the bench" is just another in a long line of bullshit talking points conservative whine about when its a ruling they don't like. When its a ruling they do like, they never claim its legislating from the bench.

If a law is passed that's deemed unconstitutional, that's what the courts rule on, as that is their job. Period, no legislating there.

Really?

EXAMPLES:

Brown v. Board of Education - 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use contraception.
Loving v. Virginia - 1967 Supreme Court ruling requiring the legalization of interracial marriage.
Roe v. Wade - 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Lawrence v. Texas - 2003 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to sodomy.
_________________

And Guess what Amendment these ruling violated?

The laws violated the 9th and the 14th.

In fact here's the text of the 9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It means that the fed (and since then the states) do not have an unlimited right to **** with citizens so long as they don't violate the other amendments.

Things like contraception fall under that right.

EDIT: I just realized all his links are conservapedia, probably the least trustworthy source on the entire internet.

I've never bothered with it, I prefer to read the original and make up my own mind. But they completely mis-cited one and were technically not "incorrect" but grossly oversimplified at best on the rest. Which tells me it's just another one of those sources that tells people what opinions to hold rather then gives them the facts on which to form an opinion. Not impressive.