Shocking: Kagan Wont Answer If It's Unconstitutional To Tell People What To Eat.

[The T]

doesn't look like Kagan is much of a culinary discriminant to me........~S~

As a matter of course? No, she isn't. She's an elitist like the rest of them.

 

[ForestGirl]

He...I mean she - is sooooooooooo feminine in her lovely pumpkin costume.

 

[Woyzeck]

This shitbag liberal about to be put on the SCOTUS doesn't even believe in the Declaration of Indenpendence....



Morning Bell: The Limitless Power of the Obama-Kagan Congress | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


She really is a clone of Obama. This is her version of voting "present".

So, she thinks that rights are only derived from the Constitution. She would be correct. The purpose of the Declaration was to announce and explain the colonies decision to declare... independence from Great Britain. It was written over a decade before the government and country as we know it was set up.

The purpose of the Declaration was far more than just announcing independency from Britain. It declared that all men had certain rights, endowed by their Creator. Not rights granted by a government, democratic, republican, or otherwise.

But the Constitution is the document that sets up the social contract between the government and the people, that limits the government and sets up rights for the people. While the Declaration did make sweeping statements of equal rights, if it had any bearing on our rights, why did it take an amendment to the Constitution to end slavery, give women the vote, or eliminate such voting restrictions as poll taxes? Shouldn't we already have had equal rights applying from the Declaration?

 

[Old Rocks]

He...I mean she - is sooooooooooo feminine in her lovely pumpkin costume.

Taint a beauty contest, dingbat. She will be the next Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Old Rocks]

doesn't look like Kagan is much of a culinary discriminant to me........~S~

As a matter of course? No, she isn't. She's an elitist like the rest of them.

Yup, by golly. Us elitist liberals are just taking over and whupping up on you pansy ass Conservatives. You'll just have to adjust your 'wide stance', quit picking the posies, and learn to work for a living.

 

[sparky]

So, she thinks that rights are only derived from the Constitution. She would be correct. The purpose of the Declaration was to announce and explain the colonies decision to declare... independence from Great Britain. It was written over a decade before the government and country as we know it was set up.

The purpose of the Declaration was far more than just announcing independency from Britain. It declared that all men had certain rights, endowed by their Creator. Not rights granted by a government, democratic, republican, or otherwise.

But the Constitution is the document that sets up the social contract between the government and the people, that limits the government and sets up rights for the people. While the Declaration did make sweeping statements of equal rights, if it had any bearing on our rights, why did it take an amendment to the Constitution to end slavery, give women the vote, or eliminate such voting restrictions as poll taxes? Shouldn't we already have had equal rights applying from the Declaration?

short version, the disparity of the people's wishes, and our governments desire to meet them is a growing gap here.

corporations are the catered to 'individuals' , who's rights come first and foremost, thus the disconnect of said social contract, and demonizing it as socailist, socialism here

~S~

 

[sparky]

doesn't look like Kagan is much of a culinary discriminant to me........~S~

As a matter of course? No, she isn't. She's an elitist like the rest of them.

Yup, by golly. Us elitist liberals are just taking over and whupping up on you pansy ass Conservatives. You'll just have to adjust your 'wide stance', quit picking the posies, and learn to work for a living.

yeah, socialism is such a deadly pandemic here Rocks

i'm off looking for that star spangled manna to float down from the fed's so, hold my calls

~S~

 

[Douger]

Isn't that in IsNtReal ?

 

[Bern80]

We might all consider thanking the two posters above for their 'considered' opinons. If they would be so kind as to post their CV's so all of us might know which law school they attended and the extent of their law practice on Constitutional Issues.
On a more serious note, Alabama Sen. Sessions is an embarrassment to all Americans; is he the best and the brightest Alabama can offer?

Get off your high horse you imbecile. You think the framers really intended for every citizen to attend a constitutional laws school in order to understand the constitution? It is written in plain english for all to understand, anyone who says otherwise is trying rationalize something they already know isn't even constitutional and Kagen couldn't even come up with semi-coherent rationalization. Instead of being a smartass why don't YOU tell us where the fed would get the constitutional authority to tell us what we can or can't eat.

 

[Bern80]

She wouldn't answer Senator Coburns question if it unconstitutional for congress to tell us what to eat. What does that tell us about her? It's just like the government telling us we have to purchase health care. Kagan stuttered and had no answer whether it violated the Commerce Clause. People need to wake up and jump on this. Call your senators and tell them that this woman can't be seated on the Supreme Court. This woman will not be faithful to the Constitution. She is not qualified to be seated because she rejects the Constitution and a politcal hack will do everything for her unconstitutionally qualified President and she wants to expand the federal government.

Listen to this radical:


YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

if govt does not have the constitutional right to tell people what they can eat then it also does not have the constitutional right to tell them what they can or can not smoke or injest.

therefore

govt does not have the constitutional right to deny people the right to smoke pot
or snort cocaine

I see some people are catching on.

 

[Bern80]

Ask a dumb question.... actually she did answer it. Law is not about unenforceable silliness, only republicans are about that. Consider as an example smoking and the warning label, this is a reasonable use of information and a reasonable use of legislation. I watched a bit of the hearing today and if there were an honest person in congress they could shorten the dialogue easily, all they need to do is state their beliefs and say do believe these things too? End of BS session.

Unforseeable silliness? Maybe in your post. Asking someone who's job it is to interpret and defend the constitition whether something is constitutional or not is silliness?

 

[Gunny]

It's okay. Really. Obama hasn't answered shit, nor has the left justified his bullshit at any level since the Democratic primaries. They just voted "D" in the leftwingnut sheeple line.

 

[Modbert]

Bern..You realize you're replying to comments made a month ago?

 

[PixieStix]

She wouldn't answer Senator Coburns question if it unconstitutional for congress to tell us what to eat. What does that tell us about her? It's just like the government telling us we have to purchase health care. Kagan stuttered and had no answer whether it violated the Commerce Clause. People need to wake up and jump on this. Call your senators and tell them that this woman can't be seated on the Supreme Court. This woman will not be faithful to the Constitution. She is not qualified to be seated because she rejects the Constitution and a politcal hack will do everything for her unconstitutionally qualified President and she wants to expand the federal government.

Listen to this radical:


YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Dumb progressive ideas, are indefensible

 

[Truthmatters]

Is it illegal to eat certain substances already in this country

 

[jillian]

That's pretty amazing, but I wouldn't expect anything less from an Obama nominee.

Nor would I. We don't need any more radicals on the bench than we already have. Actually, I really need to expand on that by saying we don't need any more radicals anywhere in government than we already have.

so you'd be willing to have clarence thomas and antonin scalia removed from the bench?

 

[Gunny]

That's pretty amazing, but I wouldn't expect anything less from an Obama nominee.

Nor would I. We don't need any more radicals on the bench than we already have. Actually, I really need to expand on that by saying we don't need any more radicals anywhere in government than we already have.

so you'd be willing to have clarence thomas and antonin scalia removed from the bench?

They aren't anywhere near as radical as Obama's nominees. Not in THIS life.

 

[Bern80]

Is it illegal to eat certain substances already in this country

Why do people use this ridiculous argument? Seriously, what is the point? That because unconstitutional laws are already on the books it's okay to continue making unconstitutional laws?

Kagen's job is going to be to interpret and defend the constitution. If she can not even answer whether something is constitutional or not, she shouldn't be there.

 

[The T]

It's okay. Really. Obama hasn't answered shit, nor has the left justified his bullshit at any level since the Democratic primaries. They just voted "D" in the leftwingnut sheeple line.

And comtinue to try to drag the rest of us with them into their deepening hole.

 

[blu]

We might all consider thanking the two posters above for their 'considered' opinons. If they would be so kind as to post their CV's so all of us might know which law school they attended and the extent of their law practice on Constitutional Issues.
On a more serious note, Alabama Sen. Sessions is an embarrassment to all Americans; is he the best and the brightest Alabama can offer?

whats with the crazy deflection?