The Bell Curve of American History

[PoliticalChic]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.
   

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR turned us into a modern democracy

One that cares about the plight of its people, on that helps those needing help, one that is more concerned with the welfare of We the People than defending the rights of corporate profit

I can see why conservatives are outraged

Did you know that FDR lied when he swore this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


...with his hand on the family bible, too.


Which of Dante's circles do you imagine he occupies?
You didn't understand that reference, did you.

You have had 80 years to show that what FDR did was unconstitutional....what is taking you so long?

OMG.

Another "is not,isss notttttt!' post from a Liberal dunce.


This is very simple....so simple that even you may understand...although we both know you'll lie, and pretend not to...

....but I am the eternal optimist,,,so here goes:

The Constitution lists the specific authority of the federal government in Article 1, section 8.

If you find the right of the federal government to authorize either personal insurance, or charity, then I must be wrong.
If you cannot.....then....as usual....you are incorrect.


Go for it.


After you are exposed in your misunderstanding.....go on to explain why your demigod, FDR, ....if he felt that he had the right to authorize either personal insurance, or charity,....

.....explain why he didn't follow the Constitution that he swore to preserve, and instruct his Congress to write amendments to give him those rights.


Shall I wait....or proceed with a long and eventful life?

 

[GaryDog]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

Again, your originalism smacks of the rote partisanship of the Scalia doctrine, so I'll use that as an example as to why you're a water-headed buffoon.

Scalia's decision in Heller that arbitrarily denies states' rights to regulate gun usage for the safety of its citizens predicated on the idea that the constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to use guns for home defense. It does not.

Scalia's hypocrisy extended to Bush v. Gore when he supported the court's usage of the 14th amendment to hand the presidency to GW Bush, while Scalia simultaneously complained that gays and women should not be covered by the 14th Amendment. So, who then....straight men? That's it? Who knew that "equal protection" could only be read literally in such a way? And who knew Article III gave the court the ability to apply its decision to specific circumstances of one case only??

Even your buddy Rehnquist suggested the court could intervene "politically" when there's a crisis. Can you find me that enumerated power for the judiciary?

The simple fact is that a true originalist on the court is and always has been a myth, just like using Atlas Shrugged as a blue print for an economy is patently absurd.

And I'll cuss all I want, you shitfaced twat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

Again, your originalism smacks of the rote partisanship of the Scalia doctrine, so I'll use that as an example as to why you're a water-headed buffoon.

Scalia's decision in Heller that arbitrarily denies states' rights to regulate gun usage for the safety of its citizens predicated on the idea that the constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to use guns for home defense. It does not.

Scalia's hypocrisy extended to Bush v. Gore when he supported the court's usage of the 14th amendment to hand the presidency to GW Bush, while Scalia simultaneously complained that gays and women should not be covered by the 14th Amendment. So, who then....straight men? That's it? Who knew that "equal protection" could only be read literally in such a way? And who knew Article III gave the court the ability to apply its decision to specific circumstances of one case only??

Even your buddy Rehnquist suggested the court could intervene "politically" when there's a crisis. Can you find me that enumerated power for the judiciary?

The simple fact is that a true originalist on the court is and always has been a myth, just like using Atlas Shrugged as a blue print for an economy is patently absurd.

And I'll cuss all I want, you shitfaced twat.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.


Repost in proper English, without the obscenity which is the hallmark of Liberals....and I'll rip it to shreds.

 

[GaryDog]

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

Again, your originalism smacks of the rote partisanship of the Scalia doctrine, so I'll use that as an example as to why you're a water-headed buffoon.

Scalia's decision in Heller that arbitrarily denies states' rights to regulate gun usage for the safety of its citizens predicated on the idea that the constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to use guns for home defense. It does not.

Scalia's hypocrisy extended to Bush v. Gore when he supported the court's usage of the 14th amendment to hand the presidency to GW Bush, while Scalia simultaneously complained that gays and women should not be covered by the 14th Amendment. So, who then....straight men? That's it? Who knew that "equal protection" could only be read literally in such a way? And who knew Article III gave the court the ability to apply its decision to specific circumstances of one case only??

Even your buddy Rehnquist suggested the court could intervene "politically" when there's a crisis. Can you find me that enumerated power for the judiciary?

The simple fact is that a true originalist on the court is and always has been a myth, just like using Atlas Shrugged as a blue print for an economy is patently absurd.

And I'll cuss all I want, you shitfaced twat.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.


Repost in proper English, without the obscenity which is the hallmark of Liberals....and I'll rip it to shreds.

Fuck you.

My very first post in response to your insane bullshit was respectful, and stuck to the issues.

You immediately replied, calling me a moron.

You're a small-minded little shit with his head up his ass. Reply to what you've got, or fuck off back down into that Alabama suburb where you're sales-repping your way to a life of dominos pizza and coca cola.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

Again, your originalism smacks of the rote partisanship of the Scalia doctrine, so I'll use that as an example as to why you're a water-headed buffoon.

Scalia's decision in Heller that arbitrarily denies states' rights to regulate gun usage for the safety of its citizens predicated on the idea that the constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to use guns for home defense. It does not.

Scalia's hypocrisy extended to Bush v. Gore when he supported the court's usage of the 14th amendment to hand the presidency to GW Bush, while Scalia simultaneously complained that gays and women should not be covered by the 14th Amendment. So, who then....straight men? That's it? Who knew that "equal protection" could only be read literally in such a way? And who knew Article III gave the court the ability to apply its decision to specific circumstances of one case only??

Even your buddy Rehnquist suggested the court could intervene "politically" when there's a crisis. Can you find me that enumerated power for the judiciary?

The simple fact is that a true originalist on the court is and always has been a myth, just like using Atlas Shrugged as a blue print for an economy is patently absurd.

And I'll cuss all I want, you shitfaced twat.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.


Repost in proper English, without the obscenity which is the hallmark of Liberals....and I'll rip it to shreds.

Fuck you.

My very first post in response to your insane bullshit was respectful, and stuck to the issues.

You immediately replied, calling me a moron.

You're a small-minded little shit with his head up his ass. Reply to what you've got, or fuck off back down into that Alabama suburb where you're sales-repping your way to a life of dominos pizza and coca cola.

There is a simple explanation, so simple that even one such as you, with your limited ....ability....may understand your propensity:

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've lost the argument. Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.


But....I did have fun exposing you.

 

[GaryDog]

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

Again, your originalism smacks of the rote partisanship of the Scalia doctrine, so I'll use that as an example as to why you're a water-headed buffoon.

Scalia's decision in Heller that arbitrarily denies states' rights to regulate gun usage for the safety of its citizens predicated on the idea that the constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to use guns for home defense. It does not.

Scalia's hypocrisy extended to Bush v. Gore when he supported the court's usage of the 14th amendment to hand the presidency to GW Bush, while Scalia simultaneously complained that gays and women should not be covered by the 14th Amendment. So, who then....straight men? That's it? Who knew that "equal protection" could only be read literally in such a way? And who knew Article III gave the court the ability to apply its decision to specific circumstances of one case only??

Even your buddy Rehnquist suggested the court could intervene "politically" when there's a crisis. Can you find me that enumerated power for the judiciary?

The simple fact is that a true originalist on the court is and always has been a myth, just like using Atlas Shrugged as a blue print for an economy is patently absurd.

And I'll cuss all I want, you shitfaced twat.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.


Repost in proper English, without the obscenity which is the hallmark of Liberals....and I'll rip it to shreds.

Fuck you.

My very first post in response to your insane bullshit was respectful, and stuck to the issues.

You immediately replied, calling me a moron.

You're a small-minded little shit with his head up his ass. Reply to what you've got, or fuck off back down into that Alabama suburb where you're sales-repping your way to a life of dominos pizza and coca cola.

There is a simple explanation, so simple that even one such as you, with your limited ....ability....may understand your propensity:

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've lost the argument. Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.


But....I did have fun exposing you.

You realize that you embody your own pet peeves, right? Does insulting people out of the gate give your medically-induced penis a jolt?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In addition to been stupid, your vulgarity gives you away. So....how long have you been a Liberal?

2. Gads, you're a moron....one hardly knows where to begin your education.
Article thee states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
The Constitution was written in English, you fool....nor does Article three state "and interpret law."

3. The only power the Supreme Court has is to show the specific relationship between any issue before it, and the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
"The brief writer’s version [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Here....as I am clearly more facile with the English language than you are....let me interpret that for you:
Judges have no right to insert their own views in the law. They are only authorized to decide a case as it is "tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted."

1. 
   
   
   4. Understanding the Constitution is an exercise in the the use of the English language.
   If there is any question about the Framer's intention....this is the procedure to be followed:
   "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. 
      For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
   “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

Don't force me to have to school you again.

And watch your language.

Again, your originalism smacks of the rote partisanship of the Scalia doctrine, so I'll use that as an example as to why you're a water-headed buffoon.

Scalia's decision in Heller that arbitrarily denies states' rights to regulate gun usage for the safety of its citizens predicated on the idea that the constitution gives citizens a fundamental right to use guns for home defense. It does not.

Scalia's hypocrisy extended to Bush v. Gore when he supported the court's usage of the 14th amendment to hand the presidency to GW Bush, while Scalia simultaneously complained that gays and women should not be covered by the 14th Amendment. So, who then....straight men? That's it? Who knew that "equal protection" could only be read literally in such a way? And who knew Article III gave the court the ability to apply its decision to specific circumstances of one case only??

Even your buddy Rehnquist suggested the court could intervene "politically" when there's a crisis. Can you find me that enumerated power for the judiciary?

The simple fact is that a true originalist on the court is and always has been a myth, just like using Atlas Shrugged as a blue print for an economy is patently absurd.

And I'll cuss all I want, you shitfaced twat.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.


Repost in proper English, without the obscenity which is the hallmark of Liberals....and I'll rip it to shreds.

Fuck you.

My very first post in response to your insane bullshit was respectful, and stuck to the issues.

You immediately replied, calling me a moron.

You're a small-minded little shit with his head up his ass. Reply to what you've got, or fuck off back down into that Alabama suburb where you're sales-repping your way to a life of dominos pizza and coca cola.

There is a simple explanation, so simple that even one such as you, with your limited ....ability....may understand your propensity:

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've lost the argument. Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.


But....I did have fun exposing you.

You realize that you embody your own pet peeves, right? Does insulting people out of the gate give your medically-induced penis a jolt?

What a brilliant post.
You do a far better job insulting you than I can....

Your lack of, in no particular order, education, ambition, energy, resourcefulness, sociability, honesty, reliability, and general humanity would probably rule you out in any other grouping but 'Liberal."

Don't ever change......as though you could.

 

[GaryDog]

And it's duly noted that you're still speechless in response to my points in Post 23. We didn't expect anything else from your feeble mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And it's duly noted that you're still speechless in response to my points in Post 23. We didn't expect anything else from your feeble mind.

"We"?

So...you have a tapeworm in addition to your mental problems???

Get well soon.

 

[GaryDog]

And it's duly noted that you're still speechless in response to my points in Post 23. We didn't expect anything else from your feeble mind.

"We"?

So...you have a tapeworm in addition to your mental problems???

Get well soon.

Well since 99% of the members of the bar in the country disagree with your laughable assessment of constitutional law, yes, I'm in heavy company.