Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

 

[Ravi]

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Confirmation of what? That I'm tired of your side lying all the time?

Confirmation that even a reasonable law, and this isn't even a law, it's a relaxing of current law (or even just hiring more people) causes you to have a hissy fit.

 

[Ravi]

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

 

[martybegan]

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Confirmation of what? That I'm tired of your side lying all the time?

Confirmation that even a reasonable law, and this isn't even a law, it's a relaxing of current law (or even just hiring more people) causes you to have a hissy fit.

When I get my rights back, the "hissy fit" will end. Until then, FOAD.

 

[martybegan]

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

A distinction with a difference.is something an ideologue can't grasp, and a pragmatist does. Separate but equal was the law for half a century, separate but unequal was the practice enforced by the many for centuries.

 

[Mac1958]

Quinnipiac this morning, December 2:

Clinton 46%
Carson 43%

Clinton 47%
Trump 41%

Clinton 45%
Rubio 44%

Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%

And interestingly, Sanders does even better:

Sanders 47%
Carson 41%

Sanders 49%
Trump 41%

Sanders 44%
Rubio 43%

Sanders 49%
Cruz 39%

Source: Release Detail


.

 

[jillian]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

 

[jillian]

Quinnipiac this morning, December 2:

Clinton 46%
Carson 43%

Clinton 47%
Trump 41%

Clinton 45%
Rubio 44%

Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%

And interestingly, Sanders does even better:

Sanders 47%
Carson 41%

Sanders 49%
Trump 41%

Sanders 44%
Rubio 43%

Sanders 49%
Cruz 39%

Source: Release Detail


.

and it will get better for Hillary after your guys pick someone who can't win and people get to hear her debate them.

 

[Mac1958]

Quinnipiac this morning, December 2:

Clinton 46%
Carson 43%

Clinton 47%
Trump 41%

Clinton 45%
Rubio 44%

Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%

And interestingly, Sanders does even better:

Sanders 47%
Carson 41%

Sanders 49%
Trump 41%

Sanders 44%
Rubio 43%

Sanders 49%
Cruz 39%

Source: Release Detail


.

and it will get better for Hillary after your guys pick someone who can't win and people get to hear her debate them.

My guys?

Independents?

Webb?
.

 

[jillian]

Quinnipiac this morning, December 2:

Clinton 46%
Carson 43%

Clinton 47%
Trump 41%

Clinton 45%
Rubio 44%

Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%

And interestingly, Sanders does even better:

Sanders 47%
Carson 41%

Sanders 49%
Trump 41%

Sanders 44%
Rubio 43%

Sanders 49%
Cruz 39%

Source: Release Detail


.

and it will get better for Hillary after your guys pick someone who can't win and people get to hear her debate them.

My guys?

Independents?

Webb?
.

ok...

 

[JimH52]

Quinnipiac this morning, December 2:

Clinton 46%
Carson 43%

Clinton 47%
Trump 41%

Clinton 45%
Rubio 44%

Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%

And interestingly, Sanders does even better:

Sanders 47%
Carson 41%

Sanders 49%
Trump 41%

Sanders 44%
Rubio 43%

Sanders 49%
Cruz 39%

Source: Release Detail


.

and it will get better for Hillary after your guys pick someone who can't win and people get to hear her debate them.

With Trump, Clinton will debate and Trump will insult. It has been his MO up until this point.

 

[Ravi]

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

 

[jillian]

Quinnipiac this morning, December 2:

Clinton 46%
Carson 43%

Clinton 47%
Trump 41%

Clinton 45%
Rubio 44%

Clinton 47%
Cruz 42%

And interestingly, Sanders does even better:

Sanders 47%
Carson 41%

Sanders 49%
Trump 41%

Sanders 44%
Rubio 43%

Sanders 49%
Cruz 39%

Source: Release Detail


.

and it will get better for Hillary after your guys pick someone who can't win and people get to hear her debate them.

With Trump, Clinton will debate and Trump will insult. It has been his MO up until this point.

and he'll look like the bigoted bully he is. i'm pretty sure she'll kick his bigoted butt if it's him. (though I still think it will be Rubio, in which case he'll look shallow and inexperienced and not well-informed next to her).

 

[martybegan]

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

A distinction with a difference.is something an ideologue can't grasp, and a pragmatist does. Separate but equal was the law for half a century, separate but unequal was the practice enforced by the many for centuries.

That separate but equal was not equal is not in dispute. That the practice when mandated by the government and systemic was unconstitutional is not in dispute.

What I dispute is the need to ruin someone over a baked or unbaked cake, and calling it moral or righteous, or even constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

 

[martybegan]

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

 

[jillian]

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

equal protection is ALWAYS a federal issue. that way the states can't treat people like animals because of their race, religion or sexuality.

or do you forget that it took federal troops to integrate the south.

see, you and I see eye to eye on some issues, but your grasp of the role of the supreme court is nonexistent.

Systemic, government mandated discrimination was unconstitutional, and the courts acted rightly to end it. Considering they were the ones to fuck it up in the first place with plessey, they owed us the fix.

Systemic, government mandated forcing of people to participate in things they don't want to is just as bad as government mandated discrimination. that's the concept you refuse to grasp.

A distinction with a difference.is something an ideologue can't grasp, and a pragmatist does. Separate but equal was the law for half a century, separate but unequal was the practice enforced by the many for centuries.

That separate but equal was not equal is not in dispute. That the practice when mandated by the government and systemic was unconstitutional is not in dispute.

What I dispute is the need to ruin someone over a baked or unbaked cake, and calling it moral or righteous, or even constitutional.

the high court decides what is constitutional. you do not.

I think it is unconstitutional for hobby lobby to impose it's religious beliefs on its workers. the court says it isn't.

that's life. the court wins.

i'm confused as to why you don't understand that is the basis for our entire legal system.

 

[jillian]

If you want to get laughed at, go right ahead. I've never proposed a law in my life, moron.

I've decided I have a right to whip my dick around in public! The 9th amendment lets me do it!!!!!

As long as you don't hassle someone with it I don't really see a problem. Have at it. Put it on youtube! It will be a riot

I would get charged with public indecency. But the 9th amendment says I have the right to!!!!!

So challenge that law as well. You sure whine about your rights but you aren't willing to do anything about them. Waiting for someone else to help you?

There are lawsuits aplenty out there already. The point is I shouldn't have to fight it, the people in government should know better.

that isn't how it works.

 

[jillian]

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.