Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?

[progressive hunter]

Lefties hate the constitution and they want it destroyed or changed.

Another lie.

For decades liberals have used Constitutional case law to defend against the right’s attack on citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine the meaning of the Constitution – ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

That you and other conservatives don’t like how the courts have ruled is understandable, given the Constitution’s case law safeguards the American people from the right’s fear, ignorance, and hate.

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

 

[Rigby5]

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

The 2nd amendment is a single sentence, meaning it's to be interpreted as a sentence.
Why do you keep leaving out the first half.

the first half clarifies the second and has no power ,,

In logic one can say, if A then B. but the second amendment is really saying because A, then B.
Which really states if A then B, AND that A is true.
So then the second amendment is stating B is true, which is that the federal government shall have no jurisdiction over firearms.
It is not saying it is dependent upon A, the militia at all, because there could also be dozens of other reasons why the federal government should not have weapons jurisdiction.
If A then B does not imply not B if not A.
That is because B is not dependent upon A if there are other causal statements, like if C then B, if D then B, etc.
For example, the founders likely wanted to prevent federal weapons jurisdiction in case the federal government became corrupt, because the federal government is too far away and could not be counted on in an emergency, because the federal government could not as well differentiate between crowded urban areas and sparse rural areas, etc.
That are MANY reasons why the federal government should never have weapons jurisdiction, and NO reason why they ever should.

 

[meaner gene]

The first sentence is explanatory. It has no legal implications.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you agree with?

The 2nd amendment is only one sentence long, and you claim it has no legal implications.

 

[rightwinger]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is compared to a political party?

Given your posts in this thread the more relevant question is : do you have any idea of what a liberal is ? because so far you've clearly demonstrated that you do NOT.

You appear to be one of those folks that just like to use the "liberal" moniker as a mask to hide your true ideology which appears to be a garden variety, partisan progressive, maybe you can fool yourself by doing so but you're not fooling anyone that has understands history and political science.

Why not just admit what you are? are you ashamed of your belief system or something?

OK....I’ll let JFK define it for you

View attachment 492186

A 1960 Liberal. Or a 2020 Progressive Socialist. Voting for free stuff is not equality.

Helping people who need help is the earmark of a great society.
Allocating tax funds to do so is how it is done

Everyone gets “free stuff”
Some just object to others getting stuff

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

 

[progressive hunter]

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

The 2nd amendment is a single sentence, meaning it's to be interpreted as a sentence.
Why do you keep leaving out the first half.

the first half clarifies the second and has no power ,,

In logic one can say, if A then B. but the second amendment is really saying because A, then B.
Which really states if A then B, AND that A is true.
So then the second amendment is stating B is true, which is that the federal government shall have no jurisdiction over firearms.
It is not saying it is dependent upon A, the militia at all, because there could also be dozens of other reasons why the federal government should not have weapons jurisdiction.
If A then B does not imply not B if not A.
That is because B is not dependent upon A if there are other causal statements, like if C then B, if D then B, etc.
For example, the founders likely wanted to prevent federal weapons jurisdiction in case the federal government became corrupt, because the federal government is too far away and could not be counted on in an emergency, because the federal government could not as well differentiate between crowded urban areas and sparse rural areas, etc.
That are MANY reasons why the federal government should never have weapons jurisdiction, and NO reason why they ever should.

why did you waste the time on that when the 2nd is in simple english??

 

[danielpalos]

It seems most on the left want the Constitution radically changed.

What changes do you want to make to it that will result in the USA being a better place to live?

I believe our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. We could not do a better job today.

 

[progressive hunter]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

are you saying the states dont have a right to restrict the 2nd amendment?? please tell me,,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems most on the left want the Constitution radically changed.

What changes do you want to make to it that will result in the USA being a better place to live?

LOLOL.. you ASSUME they want to change the Constitution.. That's hysterical.

It's also a lie.

 

[meaner gene]

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

You mean like where the constitution says that the USSC determines its interpretation?

it doesnt say that,,

Exactly. So where did the USSC get that power from?

Think about your answer.

 

[bripat9643]

Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?​

The fact that none of you conservative types have read it.

That is NOT TRUE
They have read the Second Amendment.

Well, half of it maybe

26 words out of something like 4500.

You don't agree with the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, of any of the others, for that matter.

I may not agree with your twisted, low IQ interpretation of them but I do agree with them as they are written.

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

You're ignoring what I said.

And the word is "infringed".

Just proof that you haven't really read it.

Either way, do you support outlawing so-called "assault weapons?"

What's that got to do with the discussion at hand?

Where are the Militias?

The first sentence is explanatory. It has no legal implications.

You claimed you support the Constitution, not prove it.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you agree with?

The first sentence iss explanatory? Who told you that nonsense?

legal scholars.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

You mean like where the constitution says that the USSC determines its interpretation?

it doesnt say that,,

Exactly. So where did the USSC get that power from?

Think about your answer.

The court awarded it to itself.

Don't you know that history?

 

[surada]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

 

[rightwinger]

It seems most on the left want the Constitution radically changed.

What changes do you want to make to it that will result in the USA being a better place to live?

I believe our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. We could not do a better job today.

We could never compromise or reach agreement today

 

[bripat9643]

case law doesnt apply to the constitution,, but you knew that already,,

The constitution is case law. The 2nd amendment is 26 words. The USSC opinion is over 5,000 words.

You keep saying that, but it's a Stalinist theory that is dead wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

Of course "voter suppression" refers to any bill designed to prevent election fraud.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

You mean like where the constitution says that the USSC determines its interpretation?

it doesnt say that,,

Exactly. So where did the USSC get that power from?

Think about your answer.

The court awarded it to itself.

Don't you know that history?

If Congress did not want the courts to have that power, they would have passed legislation

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lefties hate the constitution and they want it destroyed or changed.

Another lie.

For decades liberals have used Constitutional case law to defend against the right’s attack on citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine the meaning of the Constitution – ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

That you and other conservatives don’t like how the courts have ruled is understandable, given the Constitution’s case law safeguards the American people from the right’s fear, ignorance, and hate.

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

It’s as if the Framers foresaw today’s conservatives, and recognizing that threat to the Republic and to the rights of its citizens, composed the Constitution as a countermeasure to the fear, ignorance, and hate common to the reactionary right.

 

[rightwinger]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

Of course "voter suppression" refers to any bill designed to prevent election fraud.

Creating imaginary fraud to justify suppressing the vote

 

[Rigby5]

The constitution says the state legislatures will run elections, not Congress.

Once again, you only prove that you despise the Constitution.

This only proves you haven't read the constitution. Which as I said explicitly gives congress the right to set rules for federal elections.

I disagree.
The constitution not only says very little about elections, but what it says is awful and bad.

{... Section 3 originally required that the state legislatures elect the members of the Senate, but the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provides for the direct election of senators. ...}

If not for the states fixing the constitution with an amendment, we would not even be able to vote for senators at all.
In fact, originally only male land owners could vote.

When the SCOTUS started getting involved to ensure Blacks could vote, stopping Gerrymandering, etc., that is not federal authority.
That is judicial authority, and is completely separate from legislative jurisdiction, which the federal government is not supposed to have over elections.

But Congress is allowed to pass legislation that upholds the 14th amendment fairness.
Although the federal government has no jurisdiction to establish how elections are to be held by each state, the federal government can prevent a state from cheating somehow.