Should an unelected Supreme Court overturn a State constitution as 'unconstitutional'? (Missouri)

[BluesLegend]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

Hell yes, if a state banned 1st or 2nd amendment rights in their state constitution they will be stomped on by the SCOTUS.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a ******* vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;
But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as **** not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical.

OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How ******* convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;

A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce.

That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant ****! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

So the answer is YES?

So the answer is YES?

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. **** you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

It was answered, you ******* imbecile! You don't care for the response, tough shit! Your question was non sequitur, not germane to the topic at hand, a dissembling deflection so you could avoid the actual topic of your perpetual lies, distortions and dodges! What a piece of shit you truly are and displaying so clearly now!

You've responded to almost all of my post with the very conduct you now try to lay on me, you astoundingly supercilious lump of lying dog shit! The greatest enemy of truth is a person without moral guidance and conduct, and you are one rudderless mother ******, Tex!

 

[OKTexas]

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical.

OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How ******* convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;

A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce.

That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant ****! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

So the answer is YES?

So the answer is YES?

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. **** you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

It was answered, you ******* imbecile! You don't care for the response, tough shit! Your question was non sequitur, not germane to the topic at hand, a dissembling deflection so you could avoid the actual topic of your perpetual lies, distortions and dodges! What a piece of shit you truly are and displaying so clearly now!

You've responded to almost all of my post with the very conduct you now try to lay on me, you astoundingly supercilious lump of lying dog shit! The greatest enemy of truth is a person without moral guidance and conduct, and you are one rudderless mother ******, Tex!

Here's your answer child: It's YES!!!!!

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;
That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;
OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How ******* convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;
That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant ****! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

So the answer is YES?

So the answer is YES?

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. **** you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

It was answered, you ******* imbecile! You don't care for the response, tough shit! Your question was non sequitur, not germane to the topic at hand, a dissembling deflection so you could avoid the actual topic of your perpetual lies, distortions and dodges! What a piece of shit you truly are and displaying so clearly now!

You've responded to almost all of my post with the very conduct you now try to lay on me, you astoundingly supercilious lump of lying dog shit! The greatest enemy of truth is a person without moral guidance and conduct, and you are one rudderless mother ******, Tex!

Here's your answer child: It's YES!!!!!

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I'll deal with your last bit of despicable lying first. I NEVER agreed to show my DD2214 per YOUR CHALLENGE and as you claim because the totality was not something I wanted to share with the world. You are correct about not not displaying it only and all the peripheral lies you added are bullshit! It's nothing to be ashamed of but rather something I didn't wish to share with others because it was something a person with integrity just doesn't do to impress others or to be taken as such or

On the other hand, we both agreed to present our VA benefits letter to prove we were both in the military so I suggested that as an alternate. If I had a LTH discharge how did I receive VA disability benefits without an honorable discharge? You logic is astoundingly stupid in its contradictions.

For verification of my honorable discharge status and put your latest lie in the trash pile along with your other ones, a curious person can go to the link below and look at post #143 and click on the attachment to see I was honorably discharged. You were given that evidence as proof of my Navy service, but you just couldn't help making up yet another despicable lie, you piece of filth! Is there any further you can stoop in your perfidy, Tex?
~~ Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ~~

Now on to the rest of your bullshit!

Once again, who checks the courts when they are complicit in the overreach. [Emphasis added]

Here for at least the second time you bemoan the alleged overreach of the judicial dealing with the New Deal quotas employing the Commerce Clause as a lawful justification.

But you reverse yourself in this post by posting this;

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption[/B], be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

The only thing that is constant about you is the rate of change! You've contradicted yourself you bloody ******* FOOL, and agreeing with me at this point you IDIOT! But then you contradict yourself again you GAWD DAMN IMBECILE with this stupidity;

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

As I have explained to you several times already you ******* dolt, it's wasn't the planting per se that was at issue. It was the planting in excess of the allotted quota that was the violation of law. Jesus, Mary and Joseph are YOU that ******* obtuse or just playing at it.

Bottom line is you don't know what the **** you're talking about, you don't know how to interpret a SCOTUS decision and you are incapable of putting 2 sentences together without including at least 3 lies/distortion/obfuscations! You are one troubled pile of shit, Tex!

You're all bark and no bite, you pathetic little pile of excrement!

 

[Syriusly]

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

According to Justice Bush........

Who thinks we should listen to him- instead of the Supreme Court.

Bush still yearns for the day that Big Brother could tell Americans what kind of sex we can have in our own bedrooms.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

So you thing if a guy wants to screw an animal he is protected under 14th Amendment? BTW this bullshit amendment needs to be repealed.

Bush admitting he hates our Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination. Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

According to Justice Texas of course.

There were no laws against same gender marriage when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

Those laws were put in place by in the 1990's- who suddenly realized that there were no actual laws against same gender marriage.

So you rushed out to make them illegal.

Because you wanted to deny equal rights to same gender couples.

5 wise judges overturned your fucked up bigoted laws.

 

[g5000]

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

 

[g5000]

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

Your very next word:

Faghadist

How are you able to compartmentalize your brain so bizarrely without it exploding from cognitive dissonance?

 

[OKTexas]

So the answer is YES?

So the answer is YES?

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. **** you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

It was answered, you ******* imbecile! You don't care for the response, tough shit! Your question was non sequitur, not germane to the topic at hand, a dissembling deflection so you could avoid the actual topic of your perpetual lies, distortions and dodges! What a piece of shit you truly are and displaying so clearly now!

You've responded to almost all of my post with the very conduct you now try to lay on me, you astoundingly supercilious lump of lying dog shit! The greatest enemy of truth is a person without moral guidance and conduct, and you are one rudderless mother ******, Tex!

Here's your answer child: It's YES!!!!!

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I'll deal with your last bit of despicable lying first. I NEVER agreed to show my DD2214 per YOUR CHALLENGE and as you claim because the totality was not something I wanted to share with the world. You are correct about not not displaying it only and all the peripheral lies you added are bullshit! It's nothing to be ashamed of but rather something I didn't wish to share with others because it was something a person with integrity just doesn't do to impress others or to be taken as such or

On the other hand, we both agreed to present our VA benefits letter to prove we were both in the military so I suggested that as an alternate. If I had a LTH discharge how did I receive VA disability benefits without an honorable discharge? You logic is astoundingly stupid in its contradictions.

For verification of my honorable discharge status and put your latest lie in the trash pile along with your other ones, a curious person can go to the link below and look at post #143 and click on the attachment to see I was honorably discharged. You were given that evidence as proof of my Navy service, but you just couldn't help making up yet another despicable lie, you piece of filth! Is there any further you can stoop in your perfidy, Tex?
~~ Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ~~

Now on to the rest of your bullshit!

Once again, who checks the courts when they are complicit in the overreach. [Emphasis added]

Here for at least the second time you bemoan the alleged overreach of the judicial dealing with the New Deal quotas employing the Commerce Clause as a lawful justification.

But you reverse yourself in this post by posting this;

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption[/B], be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

The only thing that is constant about you is the rate of change! You've contradicted yourself you bloody ******* FOOL, and agreeing with me at this point you IDIOT! But then you contradict yourself again you GAWD DAMN IMBECILE with this stupidity;

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

As I have explained to you several times already you ******* dolt, it's wasn't the planting per se that was at issue. It was the planting in excess of the allotted quota that was the violation of law. Jesus, Mary and Joseph are YOU that ******* obtuse or just playing at it.

Bottom line is you don't know what the **** you're talking about, you don't know how to interpret a SCOTUS decision and you are incapable of putting 2 sentences together without including at least 3 lies/distortion/obfuscations! You are one troubled pile of shit, Tex!

You're all bark and no bite, you pathetic little pile of excrement!

Actually I reversed nothing, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the feds the authority over something that never enters interstate commerce, which was my contention from the very beginning. This was just the perfect example where SCOTUS codified that overreach, essentially granting the feds authority to regulate anything that would have the most remote tangential effect on commerce whether it crosses State lines or not. Even things as simple as 6 marijuana plants and yes, if they chose, a simple vegetable garden, all grown for personal consumption.

This was my original question and example under accepted precedent, which I've proven to be correct: (my bold)

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

Oh also, we both know a General Discharge under honorable conditions will get the same annotation on the VA letter and it is still less than an Honorable Discharge.

Accept your defeat and know all the cussing and deflection gained you nothing, in fact it just showed everyone what a pathetic losing welsher you are. LMAO

 

[OKTexas]

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination. Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

According to Justice Texas of course.

There were no laws against same gender marriage when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

Those laws were put in place by in the 1990's- who suddenly realized that there were no actual laws against same gender marriage.

So you rushed out to make them illegal.

Because you wanted to deny equal rights to same gender couples.

5 wise judges overturned your fucked up bigoted laws.

Right, that why your beloved W. J. Clinton signed the defense of marriage act. Also your dear leader and the hildabitch once held the opinion that marriage was between one man and one woman. They only change their mind for political expedience. The Federal Government which includes the Federal Courts have no constitutional authority over marriage, that is a State function.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


Just one more overreach by SCOTUS.

 

[OKTexas]

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

Your very next word:

Faghadist

How are you able to compartmentalize your brain so bizarrely without it exploding from cognitive dissonance?

Poor thing, did my pet name for militant fagots trigger you? LOL

 

[OKTexas]

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, they could marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex just like everyone else, so there was no discrimination when they are treated just like everyone. The feds assuming the power to define marriage is just another overreach, they have no constitutional authority to do so. Here's what the father of the Constitution had to say:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

That would include the definition of marriage.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. **** you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

It was answered, you ******* imbecile! You don't care for the response, tough shit! Your question was non sequitur, not germane to the topic at hand, a dissembling deflection so you could avoid the actual topic of your perpetual lies, distortions and dodges! What a piece of shit you truly are and displaying so clearly now!

You've responded to almost all of my post with the very conduct you now try to lay on me, you astoundingly supercilious lump of lying dog shit! The greatest enemy of truth is a person without moral guidance and conduct, and you are one rudderless mother ******, Tex!

Here's your answer child: It's YES!!!!!

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I'll deal with your last bit of despicable lying first. I NEVER agreed to show my DD2214 per YOUR CHALLENGE and as you claim because the totality was not something I wanted to share with the world. You are correct about not not displaying it only and all the peripheral lies you added are bullshit! It's nothing to be ashamed of but rather something I didn't wish to share with others because it was something a person with integrity just doesn't do to impress others or to be taken as such or

On the other hand, we both agreed to present our VA benefits letter to prove we were both in the military so I suggested that as an alternate. If I had a LTH discharge how did I receive VA disability benefits without an honorable discharge? You logic is astoundingly stupid in its contradictions.

For verification of my honorable discharge status and put your latest lie in the trash pile along with your other ones, a curious person can go to the link below and look at post #143 and click on the attachment to see I was honorably discharged. You were given that evidence as proof of my Navy service, but you just couldn't help making up yet another despicable lie, you piece of filth! Is there any further you can stoop in your perfidy, Tex?
~~ Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ~~

Now on to the rest of your bullshit!

Once again, who checks the courts when they are complicit in the overreach. [Emphasis added]

Here for at least the second time you bemoan the alleged overreach of the judicial dealing with the New Deal quotas employing the Commerce Clause as a lawful justification.

But you reverse yourself in this post by posting this;

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption[/B], be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

The only thing that is constant about you is the rate of change! You've contradicted yourself you bloody ******* FOOL, and agreeing with me at this point you IDIOT! But then you contradict yourself again you GAWD DAMN IMBECILE with this stupidity;

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

As I have explained to you several times already you ******* dolt, it's wasn't the planting per se that was at issue. It was the planting in excess of the allotted quota that was the violation of law. Jesus, Mary and Joseph are YOU that ******* obtuse or just playing at it.

Bottom line is you don't know what the **** you're talking about, you don't know how to interpret a SCOTUS decision and you are incapable of putting 2 sentences together without including at least 3 lies/distortion/obfuscations! You are one troubled pile of shit, Tex!

You're all bark and no bite, you pathetic little pile of excrement!

Actually I reversed nothing, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the feds the authority over something that never enters interstate commerce, which was my contention from the very beginning. This was just the perfect example where SCOTUS codified that overreach, essentially granting the feds authority to regulate anything that would have the most remote tangential effect on commerce whether it crosses State lines or not. Even things as simple as 6 marijuana plants and yes, if they chose, a simple vegetable garden, all grown for personal consumption.

This was my original question and example under accepted precedent, which I've proven to be correct: (my bold)

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

Oh also, we both know a General Discharge under honorable conditions will get the same annotation on the VA letter and it is still less than an Honorable Discharge.

Accept your defeat and know all the cussing and deflection gained you nothing, in fact it just showed everyone what a pathetic losing welsher you are. LMAO

Holy Shit, I can't believe the knots you twist with those outrageous ******* lies of yours. Shown to be contradicting your own blood statements with others IN YOUR OWN WORDS and you continue with the charade. You are one really fucked up imbecile!

And as far as my discharge goes you ******* disreputable slime ball, trying to equate an Honorable and a General Discharge is just another ******* bit of smoke you ******* lying asshole. You know the difference and how they're actually characterized as either Honorable OR General, but you just had to take the slime ball cheap shot and lie again. What's another lie to someone with your makeup, right?

But thanks for displaying your true mettle and character to all and sundry so blatantly and publicly you damn fool. Your desperation and the depth of your lack of moral conscience has been well displayed and documented for others to examine. It sucks to be you, Tex. Enjoy the shit sundae you've concocted for yourself, little man! Oh, and calling me a poser was just another projection of yours. Ta ta, shit for brains!!!!

 

[OKTexas]

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the ******* question.

It was answered, you ******* imbecile! You don't care for the response, tough shit! Your question was non sequitur, not germane to the topic at hand, a dissembling deflection so you could avoid the actual topic of your perpetual lies, distortions and dodges! What a piece of shit you truly are and displaying so clearly now!

You've responded to almost all of my post with the very conduct you now try to lay on me, you astoundingly supercilious lump of lying dog shit! The greatest enemy of truth is a person without moral guidance and conduct, and you are one rudderless mother ******, Tex!

Here's your answer child: It's YES!!!!!

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I think I know why you refused to post your 214, you got a less than honorable discharge, didn't ya? You damned sure shown how dishonorable you are in this thread. LMAO

I'll deal with your last bit of despicable lying first. I NEVER agreed to show my DD2214 per YOUR CHALLENGE and as you claim because the totality was not something I wanted to share with the world. You are correct about not not displaying it only and all the peripheral lies you added are bullshit! It's nothing to be ashamed of but rather something I didn't wish to share with others because it was something a person with integrity just doesn't do to impress others or to be taken as such or

On the other hand, we both agreed to present our VA benefits letter to prove we were both in the military so I suggested that as an alternate. If I had a LTH discharge how did I receive VA disability benefits without an honorable discharge? You logic is astoundingly stupid in its contradictions.

For verification of my honorable discharge status and put your latest lie in the trash pile along with your other ones, a curious person can go to the link below and look at post #143 and click on the attachment to see I was honorably discharged. You were given that evidence as proof of my Navy service, but you just couldn't help making up yet another despicable lie, you piece of filth! Is there any further you can stoop in your perfidy, Tex?
~~ Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ~~

Now on to the rest of your bullshit!

Once again, who checks the courts when they are complicit in the overreach. [Emphasis added]

Here for at least the second time you bemoan the alleged overreach of the judicial dealing with the New Deal quotas employing the Commerce Clause as a lawful justification.

But you reverse yourself in this post by posting this;

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption[/B], be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

The only thing that is constant about you is the rate of change! You've contradicted yourself you bloody ******* FOOL, and agreeing with me at this point you IDIOT! But then you contradict yourself again you GAWD DAMN IMBECILE with this stupidity;

You can insert any home produced commodity, including vegetables, in that sentence. So my initial assertion, Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do., is correct.

As I have explained to you several times already you ******* dolt, it's wasn't the planting per se that was at issue. It was the planting in excess of the allotted quota that was the violation of law. Jesus, Mary and Joseph are YOU that ******* obtuse or just playing at it.

Bottom line is you don't know what the **** you're talking about, you don't know how to interpret a SCOTUS decision and you are incapable of putting 2 sentences together without including at least 3 lies/distortion/obfuscations! You are one troubled pile of shit, Tex!

You're all bark and no bite, you pathetic little pile of excrement!

Actually I reversed nothing, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the feds the authority over something that never enters interstate commerce, which was my contention from the very beginning. This was just the perfect example where SCOTUS codified that overreach, essentially granting the feds authority to regulate anything that would have the most remote tangential effect on commerce whether it crosses State lines or not. Even things as simple as 6 marijuana plants and yes, if they chose, a simple vegetable garden, all grown for personal consumption.

This was my original question and example under accepted precedent, which I've proven to be correct: (my bold)

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

Oh also, we both know a General Discharge under honorable conditions will get the same annotation on the VA letter and it is still less than an Honorable Discharge.

Accept your defeat and know all the cussing and deflection gained you nothing, in fact it just showed everyone what a pathetic losing welsher you are. LMAO

Holy Shit, I can't believe the knots you twist with those outrageous ******* lies of yours. Shown to be contradicting your own blood statements with others IN YOUR OWN WORDS and you continue with the charade. You are one really fucked up imbecile!

And as far as my discharge goes you ******* disreputable slime ball, trying to equate an Honorable and a General Discharge is just another ******* bit of smoke you ******* lying asshole. You know the difference and how they're actually characterized as either Honorable OR General, but you just had to take the slime ball cheap shot and lie again. What's another lie to someone with your makeup, right?

But thanks for displaying your true mettle and character to all and sundry so blatantly and publicly you damn fool. Your desperation and the depth of your lack of moral conscience has been well displayed and documented for others to examine. It sucks to be you, Tex. Enjoy the shit sundae you've concocted for yourself, little man! Oh, and calling me a poser was just another projection of yours. Ta ta, shit for brains!!!!

Poor thing, you ignorance, no, STUPIDITY is showing again. You inability to comprehend even the simplest concepts is just amazing. I really think you should give that hooked on phonics thing a try.

 

[danielpalos]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Seems more like a "missed formality".

The case involves a Lutheran church in Missouri that operates a preschool and day care. It sought to improve its playground by applying for the state’s scrap-tire grant program, which provides money to install safe, rubberized ground coverings.

The "child care / learning center" should have applied, not the church.

In many of those cases, the school is not a separate legal entity or nonprofit. It operates under the auspices of the church and therefore cannot apply for anything.

A simple formality.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

It applies to Citizens.

 

[Bush92]

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

It applies to Citizens.

Not their sexual proclivity.

 

[Bush92]

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Your gay. We get it and nobody gives a ****. Back to the closet with you.

 

[danielpalos]

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

It applies to Citizens.

Not their sexual proclivity.

what part of behavior, is not the citizen?