Stop invoking the Constitution

[OKTexas]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

 

[Bfgrn]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[OKTexas]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Contumacious]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

Well maybe you can get an amendment through that will put the application of the Constitution under the authority of anonymous RWnuts on the internet.

Soon the FCC will rule the internet.

Any post which does not conform to the official version will be deleted and the poster will be executed, in the name of national security, of course.

The internets will be the new Pravda. But don't worry , executions will be conducted in secret and tastefully and professionally done at FCI Terre Haute, Indiana. I mean our federal government is different than those ISIS barbarians.


Ain't you government supremacist bastards lucky?


.

 

[rightwinger]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

Well maybe you can get an amendment through that will put the application of the Constitution under the authority of anonymous RWnuts on the internet.

Soon the FCC will rule the internet.

Any post which does not conform to the official version will be deleted and the poster will be executed, in the name of national security, of course.

The internets will be the new Pravda. But don't worry , executions will be conducted in secret and tastefully and professionally done at FCI Terre Haute, Indiana. I mean our federal government is different than those ISIS barbarians.


Ain't you government supremacist bastards lucky?


.

Beats selling it to the highest bidder like conservatives want

 

[Contumacious]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

Well maybe you can get an amendment through that will put the application of the Constitution under the authority of anonymous RWnuts on the internet.

Soon the FCC will rule the internet.

Any post which does not conform to the official version will be deleted and the poster will be executed, in the name of national security, of course.

The internets will be the new Pravda. But don't worry , executions will be conducted in secret and tastefully and professionally done at FCI Terre Haute, Indiana. I mean our federal government is different than those ISIS barbarians.


Ain't you government supremacist bastards lucky?


.

Beats selling it to the highest bidder like conservatives want

Well enjoy looking at these errors signs

We don't want Snowden, , Julian Assange and them pesky Libertarians criticizing the government online !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More power to the FCC

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

I am referring to those politicians, talking heads and judges on both sides who attempt bastardize the document as it was written. I'm talking about the liberal trolls on this board, and the conservative tin foil hats also.

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

 

[Bfgrn]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Thomas Jefferson abdicated that view as soon as he received a letter from U.S. Minister to France Robert Livingstone that Napoleon had changed his mind and wanted to void the Louisiana Purchase. Just 5 days later he wrote to Gallatin, directing him to prepare for a transfer of stock in order to pay France, and added that " it will be well to say as little as possible on the constitutional difficulty, and Congress should act on it without talking"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"As far as I'm concerned the US Constitution has 10 amendments."

So under the rules of the OP, you are not allowed to talk about the Constitution.

Aaand the topic went right over your head.

Politicians and people like you bastardize the document and distort it in the courts to suppress the rights of others. In my opinion you have no business attempting to enforce or explain it to others. What I see on both ends is that a lot of people are willing to outright ignore what the Constitution says on any given issue, because hey, the constitution was written a long time ago, right?

More ridiculous ignorance.

Constitutional case law is not being 'distorted' by the courts – judges rule in accordance with that case law, and consequently rule in accordance with the Constitution.

Moreover, it is in fact the 'business' of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and apply that jurisprudence to the cases that come before the courts.

No one is 'ignoring' what the Constitution says, save that of those ignorant of Constitutional case law (often willfully ignorant) and seek to disadvantage a given class of persons motivated solely by animus toward that class.

When those who seek to deny others their civil rights through force of law are prohibited from doing so by the courts in accordance with the Constitution, the violators' rights have not been 'violated.'

 

[Contumacious]

"As far as I'm concerned the US Constitution has 10 amendments."

So under the rules of the OP, you are not allowed to talk about the Constitution.

Aaand the topic went right over your head.

Politicians and people like you bastardize the document and distort it in the courts to suppress the rights of others. In my opinion you have no business attempting to enforce or explain it to others. What I see on both ends is that a lot of people are willing to outright ignore what the Constitution says on any given issue, because hey, the constitution was written a long time ago, right?

More ridiculous ignorance.

Constitutional case law is not being 'distorted' by the courts – judges rule in accordance with that case law, and consequently rule in accordance with the Constitution.

Moreover, it is in fact the 'business' of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and apply that jurisprudence to the cases that come before the courts.

No one is 'ignoring' what the Constitution says, save that of those ignorant of Constitutional case law (often willfully ignorant) and seek to disadvantage a given class of persons motivated solely by animus toward that class.

When those who seek to deny others their civil rights through force of law are prohibited from doing so by the courts in accordance with the Constitution, the violators' rights have not been 'violated.'

HUH?

Are you and "skylar" the same person?

If not , how can you be so gullible? Or is mental retardation the problem?

 

[OKTexas]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

I am referring to those politicians, talking heads and judges on both sides who attempt bastardize the document as it was written. I'm talking about the liberal trolls on this board, and the conservative tin foil hats also.

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

What a crock, the 14th clearly states that the equal protections apply to citizens, not persons. Just another overreach by the courts.

 

[Contumacious]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

I am referring to those politicians, talking heads and judges on both sides who attempt bastardize the document as it was written. I'm talking about the liberal trolls on this board, and the conservative tin foil hats also.

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

What a crock, the 14th clearly states that the equal protections apply to citizens, not persons. Just another overreach by the courts.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


14A

 

[OKTexas]

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Thomas Jefferson abdicated that view as soon as he received a letter from U.S. Minister to France Robert Livingstone that Napoleon had changed his mind and wanted to void the Louisiana Purchase. Just 5 days later he wrote to Gallatin, directing him to prepare for a transfer of stock in order to pay France, and added that " it will be well to say as little as possible on the constitutional difficulty, and Congress should act on it without talking"

There was nothing unconstitutional about the Louisiana Purchase, it was negotiated by the executive as a treaty, ratified by the Senate and funded by congress.

 

[OKTexas]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

I am referring to those politicians, talking heads and judges on both sides who attempt bastardize the document as it was written. I'm talking about the liberal trolls on this board, and the conservative tin foil hats also.

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

What a crock, the 14th clearly states that the equal protections apply to citizens, not persons. Just another overreach by the courts.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


14A

My bad, I didn't read far enough, but you do realize the 14th is only binding on the States just like Article 1, Section 10. But either way, deportation does not deny life liberty or property because any property gained would have been done so illegally.

 

[Contumacious]

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

I am referring to those politicians, talking heads and judges on both sides who attempt bastardize the document as it was written. I'm talking about the liberal trolls on this board, and the conservative tin foil hats also.

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

What a crock, the 14th clearly states that the equal protections apply to citizens, not persons. Just another overreach by the courts.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


14A

My bad, I didn't read far enough, but you do realize the 14th is only binding on the States just like Article 1, Section 10. But either way, deportation does not deny life liberty or property because any property gained would have been done so illegally.

Well, if you are going to argue about original intent then you have to recognize that (1) the states were SOVEREIGN ENTITIES and (2) they RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONFER STATE CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER THEY CHOSE .

The ONLY authority the feds have on immigration issues is to NATURALIZE *****US**** citizens.


So you can be a Texas citizen but not a US citizen.


So the feds jurisdiction over local immigration is just another USURPATION.


.

 

[Bfgrn]

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Thomas Jefferson abdicated that view as soon as he received a letter from U.S. Minister to France Robert Livingstone that Napoleon had changed his mind and wanted to void the Louisiana Purchase. Just 5 days later he wrote to Gallatin, directing him to prepare for a transfer of stock in order to pay France, and added that " it will be well to say as little as possible on the constitutional difficulty, and Congress should act on it without talking"

There was nothing unconstitutional about the Louisiana Purchase, it was negotiated by the executive as a treaty, ratified by the Senate and funded by congress.

You miss the POINT...you want to stand of Jefferson's absolutism, but Thomas Jefferson HIMSELF abdicated that strict ideology...

Jefferson had to put aside his principles because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution. Waiting for a Constitutional amendment might cause the deal to fall through. Therefore, Jefferson decided to go through with the purchase in the name of "general welfare".

 

[OKTexas]

I am referring to those politicians, talking heads and judges on both sides who attempt bastardize the document as it was written. I'm talking about the liberal trolls on this board, and the conservative tin foil hats also.

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

What a crock, the 14th clearly states that the equal protections apply to citizens, not persons. Just another overreach by the courts.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


14A

My bad, I didn't read far enough, but you do realize the 14th is only binding on the States just like Article 1, Section 10. But either way, deportation does not deny life liberty or property because any property gained would have been done so illegally.

Well, if you are going to argue about original intent then you have to recognize that (1) the states were SOVEREIGN ENTITIES and (2) they RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONFER STATE CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER THEY CHOSE .

The ONLY authority the feds have on immigration issues is to NATURALIZE *****US**** citizens.


So you can be a Texas citizen but not a US citizen.


So the feds jurisdiction over local immigration is just another USURPATION.


.

So I guess the States have every right to kick out illegals regardless of what the federal courts say, maybe they should deport them all to DC.

 

[OKTexas]

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Thomas Jefferson abdicated that view as soon as he received a letter from U.S. Minister to France Robert Livingstone that Napoleon had changed his mind and wanted to void the Louisiana Purchase. Just 5 days later he wrote to Gallatin, directing him to prepare for a transfer of stock in order to pay France, and added that " it will be well to say as little as possible on the constitutional difficulty, and Congress should act on it without talking"

There was nothing unconstitutional about the Louisiana Purchase, it was negotiated by the executive as a treaty, ratified by the Senate and funded by congress.

You miss the POINT...you want to stand of Jefferson's absolutism, but Thomas Jefferson HIMSELF abdicated that strict ideology...

Jefferson had to put aside his principles because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution. Waiting for a Constitutional amendment might cause the deal to fall through. Therefore, Jefferson decided to go through with the purchase in the name of "general welfare".

Just because Jefferson might have abandoned original intent does not change that intent. It must be done via Article 5.

 

[Contumacious]

And you're only succeeding in exhibiting your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution 'as it was written' is an ignorant, meaningless, and ridiculous notion.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution and the doctrine of judicial review acknowledged by Articles III and VI.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan' where one only follows the case law he agrees with; it is not like the bible where one may have his own personal interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the document; the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' where even a 'literalist' perception of the Constitution is subjective perception as to the Document's meaning, just as subjective as any other interpretive legal theory.

This is why the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to pursue judicial review and invalidate laws determined to be repugnant to the Constitution, where the judges follow accepted, settled Constitutional jurisprudence which in no way 'bastardizes' the Founding Document.

Consequently, and as an example, when a conservative states that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process of the law, he will be properly and appropriately admonished as being wrong by others citing Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court determined that it was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded their due process rights, including those presumed to be undocumented. One is at liberty to disagree with Plyler but he is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge the ruling as the supreme law of the land and follow it accordingly. To continue to maintain that undocumented immigrants have no due process rights is to be factually wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

What a crock, the 14th clearly states that the equal protections apply to citizens, not persons. Just another overreach by the courts.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


14A

My bad, I didn't read far enough, but you do realize the 14th is only binding on the States just like Article 1, Section 10. But either way, deportation does not deny life liberty or property because any property gained would have been done so illegally.

Well, if you are going to argue about original intent then you have to recognize that (1) the states were SOVEREIGN ENTITIES and (2) they RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONFER STATE CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER THEY CHOSE .

The ONLY authority the feds have on immigration issues is to NATURALIZE *****US**** citizens.


So you can be a Texas citizen but not a US citizen.


So the feds jurisdiction over local immigration is just another USURPATION.


.

So I guess the States have every right to kick out illegals regardless of what the federal courts say, maybe they should deport them all to DC.

They have a right to deport aliens but for example , Arizona can not prevent an alien from moving to either New Mexico or California,

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I place very little credence in your apparent claim of authority and in fact I question your fundamental understanding of the Constitution.

I never claimed any authority, thus I question your ability to read and comprehend complex sentences.