Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For what it's worth, in the late 70s I was the Operations Sergeant at the Drill Sergeant School in Ft Leonard Wood, MO. One of my responsibilities was to conduct the graduation ceremonies every two months. During the introductions and speechifying I would show this clip on the full screen in the theatre where the graduation was held.Everyone would say it was the best part of the ceremony because it would put a lump in their throat.For patriots that is.Listen to a patriot speaking.It is part of being a citizen you do understand what it means to be a citizen? No I don't think you do.this isnt 2003 dipshit...this Patriot meme isnt going to work.Considering I was giving you the advise to stop attacking patriots that would mean you are the idiot for not following it transformer boy.you are an idiot yesWisdom is hard for an idiot to accept.thats not happening
I'm defending the Constitution just like an anti America bitch you attack me. You are no better than a terrorist.Here a terrorist that will piss his pants.Fuck off shit stain I just told you what to do tough guyI'm not asking any questions I am telling you how it is.You're begging the question. You're requiring us to accept your position that abortion is murder.
You and whose army, dip? A big flap yapper, all sound and fury, signifying nothing at all. Your opinion of what the Constitution states is not shared by most people in this nation. Get over it. You have no wisdom that I can see, and you are not going to tell the rest of us what to think or do.
No, you did not tell me what to do. You just made another stupid post on an internet board. And that is all you are ever going to do, is make stupid posts on an internet board.
In order to maintain a balance of power. Etween these North and South, the framers allowed the census to record slaves as 3/5 a person.By original intent, do you also mean a Black person is only 3/5 of a citizen?The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
Did you want to discuss what that actually means and why they went that route?
Just as with the Conservative attitude on science, there is a "go to" response when things don't go the way you hoped. 'Judicial activism' is to rulings from the court that run counter to the Conservative agenda as 'Junk science' is to scientific discoveries that also run counter to the Conservative agenda.No he is not correct Judaical activism isn't constitutionalCorrect.The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
In fact, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest as an interpretation, including 'literalism.' Because no political dogma possesses a monopoly on the meaning or original intent of the Constitution, the Framers wisely codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI, where the courts are authorized by the Founding Document to review the constitutionality of laws as they had for more than a century before the advent of the Republic, and determine what the Constitution means as a result of the process of judicial review.
Consequently, the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition enshrining the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that safeguard our civil rights.
As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
No I'm not you do not have the comprehension skill to understand anything. You are a mental freak and wired ass backwards that is your problem dumb ass.ur stoopidSaying I would have been a torie you dumb fuck that is a deflection and irrelevant. It is our duty as citizen to defend the constitution even against the government if it does not abide by the constitutionhow is it a deflection?anyone with half a brain would know what i am talking aboutFucking deflection dumb ass and you would be wrong fuck wit. I know exactly what side and ancestors fought on. sO EAT SHIT AND DIE.As for your deflection it is irrelevant, it doesn't address your attempts to attack those who defend the Constitution NOW which makes you equal to a terrorist.the sad thing is you would have been a torrey back in 1776 and second your line of thinking is dangerousIt is part of being a citizen you do understand what it means to be a citizen? No I don't think you do.
Dude Judicial activism is just that Justices need to follow the law but they don't they push and support and agendaJust as with the Conservative attitude on science, there is a "go to" response when things don't go the way you hoped. 'Judicial activism' is to rulings from the court that run counter to the Conservative agenda as 'Junk science' is to scientific discoveries that also run counter to the Conservative agenda.No he is not correct Judaical activism isn't constitutionalCorrect.The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
In fact, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest as an interpretation, including 'literalism.' Because no political dogma possesses a monopoly on the meaning or original intent of the Constitution, the Framers wisely codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI, where the courts are authorized by the Founding Document to review the constitutionality of laws as they had for more than a century before the advent of the Republic, and determine what the Constitution means as a result of the process of judicial review.
Consequently, the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition enshrining the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that safeguard our civil rights.
As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
It's a card from the Sour Grapes deck that is overplayed.
OH the IRONY of what you said little boyI'm defending the Constitution just like an anti America bitch you attack me. You are no better than a terrorist.Here a terrorist that will piss his pants.Fuck off shit stain I just told you what to do tough guyI'm not asking any questions I am telling you how it is.
You and whose army, dip? A big flap yapper, all sound and fury, signifying nothing at all. Your opinion of what the Constitution states is not shared by most people in this nation. Get over it. You have no wisdom that I can see, and you are not going to tell the rest of us what to think or do.
No, you did not tell me what to do. You just made another stupid post on an internet board. And that is all you are ever going to do, is make stupid posts on an internet board.
Somebody needs a nap....
Judges are following the law, you'd understand that if you'd bother to read one of the rulings invalidating state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights.Dude Judicial activism is just that Justices need to follow the law but they don't they push and support and agendaJust as with the Conservative attitude on science, there is a "go to" response when things don't go the way you hoped. 'Judicial activism' is to rulings from the court that run counter to the Conservative agenda as 'Junk science' is to scientific discoveries that also run counter to the Conservative agenda.No he is not correct Judaical activism isn't constitutionalCorrect.The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
In fact, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest as an interpretation, including 'literalism.' Because no political dogma possesses a monopoly on the meaning or original intent of the Constitution, the Framers wisely codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI, where the courts are authorized by the Founding Document to review the constitutionality of laws as they had for more than a century before the advent of the Republic, and determine what the Constitution means as a result of the process of judicial review.
Consequently, the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition enshrining the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that safeguard our civil rights.
As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
It's a card from the Sour Grapes deck that is overplayed.
Do you wear your hazmat suit 24/7?Fucking deflection dumb ass and you would be wrong fuck wit. I know exactly what side and ancestors fought on. sO EAT SHIT AND DIE.As for your deflection it is irrelevant, it doesn't address your attempts to attack those who defend the Constitution NOW which makes you equal to a terrorist.the sad thing is you would have been a torrey back in 1776 and second your line of thinking is dangerousIt is part of being a citizen you do understand what it means to be a citizen? No I don't think you do.this isnt 2003 dipshit...this Patriot meme isnt going to work.Considering I was giving you the advise to stop attacking patriots that would mean you are the idiot for not following it transformer boy.you are an idiot yes
If you attack someone for defending the constitution you are not a patriot you are equal to a terrorist.
That is all.
God Bless America and long live the Republic.
Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I preferIf you attack someone for defending the constitution you are not a patriot you are equal to a terrorist.
That is all.
God Bless America and long live the Republic.
Oh I thought you were going to say something more relevant like listen more than you speak.
In order to maintain a balance of power. Etween these North and South, the framers allowed the census to record slaves as 3/5 a person.By original intent, do you also mean a Black person is only 3/5 of a citizen?The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
Did you want to discuss what that actually means and why they went that route?
The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half.
Original intent? With a built in amendment process, how can you, in fact, interpret intent?
All aspects of society have changed in the past 225 years. The make up of family units, the economic shift from an agricultural society to and industrial society to an information society. Communications, transportation (from ox cart to lunar lander) have altered the way we interact as a nation and a world.In order to maintain a balance of power. Etween these North and South, the framers allowed the census to record slaves as 3/5 a person.By original intent, do you also mean a Black person is only 3/5 of a citizen?The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
Did you want to discuss what that actually means and why they went that route?
The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half.
Original intent? With a built in amendment process, how can you, in fact, interpret intent?
"The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half."
Don't stop there keep going.
All these constitutional crisis birchers know that, they are just pissed that it has led to them being in the political minority and the wrong kind of people having the vote.All aspects of society have changed in the past 225 years. The make up of family units, the economic shift from an agricultural society to and industrial society to an information society. Communications, transportation (from ox cart to lunar lander) have altered the way we interact as a nation and a world.In order to maintain a balance of power. Etween these North and South, the framers allowed the census to record slaves as 3/5 a person.By original intent, do you also mean a Black person is only 3/5 of a citizen?The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
Did you want to discuss what that actually means and why they went that route?
The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half.
Original intent? With a built in amendment process, how can you, in fact, interpret intent?
"The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half."
Don't stop there keep going.
The founding fathers were indeed brilliant men. They crafted a scaffold upon which each shift in social, economic and technological shift can be accommodated by a durable, flexible standare.
Why would the founders crate a document that would fail to address the requirements of its citizens? If all other aspects of life evolve, why should we think that the constitution would remain static, atrophied and archaic?
The founders prevented such a fate by giving it a means of amendment and change.
All aspects of society have changed in the past 225 years. The make up of family units, the economic shift from an agricultural society to and industrial society to an information society. Communications, transportation (from ox cart to lunar lander) have altered the way we interact as a nation and a world.In order to maintain a balance of power. Etween these North and South, the framers allowed the census to record slaves as 3/5 a person.By original intent, do you also mean a Black person is only 3/5 of a citizen?The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
Did you want to discuss what that actually means and why they went that route?
The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half.
Original intent? With a built in amendment process, how can you, in fact, interpret intent?
"The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half."
Don't stop there keep going.
The founding fathers were indeed brilliant men. They crafted a scaffold upon which each shift in social, economic and technological shift can be accommodated by a durable, flexible standare.
Why would the founders crate a document that would fail to address the requirements of its citizens? If all other aspects of life evolve, why should we think that the constitution would remain static, atrophied and archaic?
The founders prevented such a fate by giving it a means of amendment and change.
All these constitutional crisis birchers know that, they are just pissed that it has led to them being in the political minority and the wrong kind of people having the vote.All aspects of society have changed in the past 225 years. The make up of family units, the economic shift from an agricultural society to and industrial society to an information society. Communications, transportation (from ox cart to lunar lander) have altered the way we interact as a nation and a world.In order to maintain a balance of power. Etween these North and South, the framers allowed the census to record slaves as 3/5 a person.By original intent, do you also mean a Black person is only 3/5 of a citizen?
Did you want to discuss what that actually means and why they went that route?
The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half.
Original intent? With a built in amendment process, how can you, in fact, interpret intent?
"The "original intent" of the constitution was to enumerate citizens as two separate and unequal classes. Was it a good thing that would he constitution was found to be wrong and misinterpreted for a century and a half."
Don't stop there keep going.
The founding fathers were indeed brilliant men. They crafted a scaffold upon which each shift in social, economic and technological shift can be accommodated by a durable, flexible standare.
Why would the founders crate a document that would fail to address the requirements of its citizens? If all other aspects of life evolve, why should we think that the constitution would remain static, atrophied and archaic?
The founders prevented such a fate by giving it a means of amendment and change.
What does that have anything to do with you being a stupid fuck?Do you wear your hazmat suit 24/7?Fucking deflection dumb ass and you would be wrong fuck wit. I know exactly what side and ancestors fought on. sO EAT SHIT AND DIE.As for your deflection it is irrelevant, it doesn't address your attempts to attack those who defend the Constitution NOW which makes you equal to a terrorist.the sad thing is you would have been a torrey back in 1776 and second your line of thinking is dangerousIt is part of being a citizen you do understand what it means to be a citizen? No I don't think you do.this isnt 2003 dipshit...this Patriot meme isnt going to work.Considering I was giving you the advise to stop attacking patriots that would mean you are the idiot for not following it transformer boy.
If a judge says you no longer have a first amendment right to protest do you mean it's constitutional?Judges are following the law, you'd understand that if you'd bother to read one of the rulings invalidating state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights.Dude Judicial activism is just that Justices need to follow the law but they don't they push and support and agendaJust as with the Conservative attitude on science, there is a "go to" response when things don't go the way you hoped. 'Judicial activism' is to rulings from the court that run counter to the Conservative agenda as 'Junk science' is to scientific discoveries that also run counter to the Conservative agenda.No he is not correct Judaical activism isn't constitutionalCorrect.The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
In fact, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest as an interpretation, including 'literalism.' Because no political dogma possesses a monopoly on the meaning or original intent of the Constitution, the Framers wisely codified the doctrine of judicial review in Articles III and VI, where the courts are authorized by the Founding Document to review the constitutionality of laws as they had for more than a century before the advent of the Republic, and determine what the Constitution means as a result of the process of judicial review.
Consequently, the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition enshrining the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty that safeguard our civil rights.
As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
It's a card from the Sour Grapes deck that is overplayed.
Here's the ruling from the Utah case:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf
When you read the ruling note the cited case law in support of the opinion, cases decided by the Supreme Court establishing the settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence that Federal judges used to invalidate Amendment 3.
The judges in this and the other cases aren't simply 'making up' the law, there is no 'judicial activism,' as again they are following the law.
That you don't like the ruling or disagree with it doesn't change that fact.
I don't make threats I promise you that.Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I preferIf you attack someone for defending the constitution you are not a patriot you are equal to a terrorist.
That is all.
God Bless America and long live the Republic.
Oh I thought you were going to say something more relevant like listen more than you speak.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain
