The Left Loses Ground...

[NYcarbineer]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

You've already agreed that judicial review is legitimate. You and PC are flipflopping every other post.

You dont understand the difference between legitimate and something not in the Constitution, do you, dum-dum?

Then you concede that PC is wrong when she claims that courts have NO RIGHT to 'change' the Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

Which part of the Constitution protects privacy, dum-dum?

Oh please. You really think the government can come into your house any time it pleases?

Which part of hte Constitution protects privacy, dum-dum? You cant answer the question. Because you are the biggest dum dum on this board.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

You've already agreed that judicial review is legitimate. You and PC are flipflopping every other post.

You dont understand the difference between legitimate and something not in the Constitution, do you, dum-dum?

Then you concede that PC is wrong when she claims that courts have NO RIGHT to 'change' the Constitution.

Do you even understand what you post, dum-dum?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

More irrelevancy from you.

He said all the judges in every state were gay.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, why would that matter? The judges who were not gay, wouldn't they by the same logic be biased against gay marriage?

Why do we let Clarence Thomas rule on race cases? He's BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

So now you're back to claiming that judicial review is illegal?

lol

I never said that, did I, NYLiar?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

You've already agreed that judicial review is legitimate. You and PC are flipflopping every other post.

You dont understand the difference between legitimate and something not in the Constitution, do you, dum-dum?

Then you concede that PC is wrong when she claims that courts have NO RIGHT to 'change' the Constitution.

Do you even understand what you post, dum-dum?

Non-responsive. You lose.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

So now you're back to claiming that judicial review is illegal?

lol

I never said that, did I, NYLiar?

Since you said this:

"The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation."

...thus accusing them of theft, normally deemed illegal, yes you did say that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

So now you're back to claiming that judicial review is illegal?

lol

I never said that, did I, NYLiar?

I never said that either. But that doesnt stop dum dum from claiming it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Citing that disingenuous speech of Hitler's is almost as disingenuous as the speech itself.

REALLY???

Yes, really.

If you read 'Mein Kampf' in your student years and/or various subsequent analyes of Hitler's disingenuous and false showmanship-caliber deference towards Christianity, while simultaneously attempting to supplant it with German Paganism of a bygone age, and if you took a half-second to contemplate the manner in which he acted vis-a-vis the core teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and if you had the slightest glimmer of understanding of his contempt for Christianity in all its forms, you would realize just how foolish you sound, in insisting that Hitler was a Christian operating upon Christian principles. He was baptized a Christian, and pretended to be a nominal Christian, in order to gain power within and sustain his power within a Christian country, but he was about as far from both Jesus of Nazareth and mainstream Christianity as the Adromeda Galaxy is to us. Epic Fail.

I invite you to reconsider your position on this.

I invite YOU TO ACTUALLY READ Mein Kampf, because IF YOU HAD READ Mein Kampf, you would KNOW that Hitler believed he was a Christian. I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic. But he was NOT a liberal or a 'leftist'.

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

(Selected quotes from Mein Kampf)

People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. Although one of Hitler's henchmen, Alfred Rosenberg, did undertake a campaign of Nordic mythological propaganda, Hitler and most of his henchmen did not believe in it .

Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler's "evil" have eliminated Hitler's god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler's God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics. He spoke, unashamedly, about God, fanaticism, idealism, dogma, and the power of propaganda. Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."​

Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.​

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)​

Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Christian Austria and Germany in his time took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians. Jewish hatred did not spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War II. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther.

Hitler did not have to parade his belief in God, as so many American Christians do now. Nor did he have to justify his Godly belief against an Atheist movement. He took his beliefs for granted just as most Germans did at that time. His thrust aimed at politics, not religion. But through his political and religious reasoning he established in 1933, a German Reich Christian Church, uniting the Protestant churches to instill faith in a national German Christianity.

Future generations should remember that Adolph Hitler could not have come into power without the support of the Protestant and Catholic churches and the German Christian populace.

The following quotes provides some of Hitler's expressions of his belief in religion, faith, fanaticism, Providence, and even a few of his paraphrasing of the Bible. It by no means represents the totality of Hitler's concerns. To realize the full context of these quotes, I implore the reader to study Mein Kampf.

The purpose of this text intends to dispute the claims made by Christians that Hitler "was an atheist," or "anti-religious," and to reveal the dangers of belief-systems. This text in no way attempts to give endorsement to anti-Semitism.

Quotations from Mein Kampf

continue

I held up Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf as the baseline for his pretend-Christian propaganda campaign.

All you have shown us is the words he used in crafting that baseline.

Well, we both agree that that words exist on paper.

What we disagree about is whether he disingenuously utilized those words to hoodwink the German people doing what he wanted them to.

I can think that I'm a Republican, and pretend that I'm a Republican, for public consumption, like one or two posters around here, but if my actions or day-to-day postings do not match my pretended affiliation, then nobody is going to believe that, in the final analysis.

Same concept at work here, in our own narrow context.

Hitler could think that he was a Christian, and pretend that he was a Christian, but his actions and policies and strategies in an increasing use of historical pre-Christian German Paganism - tweaked for modern consumption - as a replacement State Religion - screams non-Christian for anyone with a pair of ears and a modicum of common sense.

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And, if you have not done so already, you would do well to read Shirer's "Rise and Fall...", which, although exceedingly long, will serve-up additional insights, in opposition to your silly assertions about Hitler and Christianity.

What part of "I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic." do you need help comprehending?

If you READ Mein Kampf, instead of attacking me, you would be going after PC and her ilk for claiming Hitler was a liberal or a 'leftist'...

 

[PoliticalChic]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Citing that disingenuous speech of Hitler's is almost as disingenuous as the speech itself.

REALLY???

Yes, really.

If you read 'Mein Kampf' in your student years and/or various subsequent analyes of Hitler's disingenuous and false showmanship-caliber deference towards Christianity, while simultaneously attempting to supplant it with German Paganism of a bygone age, and if you took a half-second to contemplate the manner in which he acted vis-a-vis the core teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and if you had the slightest glimmer of understanding of his contempt for Christianity in all its forms, you would realize just how foolish you sound, in insisting that Hitler was a Christian operating upon Christian principles. He was baptized a Christian, and pretended to be a nominal Christian, in order to gain power within and sustain his power within a Christian country, but he was about as far from both Jesus of Nazareth and mainstream Christianity as the Adromeda Galaxy is to us. Epic Fail.

I invite you to reconsider your position on this.

I invite YOU TO ACTUALLY READ Mein Kampf, because IF YOU HAD READ Mein Kampf, you would KNOW that Hitler believed he was a Christian. I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic. But he was NOT a liberal or a 'leftist'.

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

(Selected quotes from Mein Kampf)

People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. Although one of Hitler's henchmen, Alfred Rosenberg, did undertake a campaign of Nordic mythological propaganda, Hitler and most of his henchmen did not believe in it .

Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler's "evil" have eliminated Hitler's god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler's God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics. He spoke, unashamedly, about God, fanaticism, idealism, dogma, and the power of propaganda. Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."​

Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.​

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)​

Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Christian Austria and Germany in his time took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians. Jewish hatred did not spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War II. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther.

Hitler did not have to parade his belief in God, as so many American Christians do now. Nor did he have to justify his Godly belief against an Atheist movement. He took his beliefs for granted just as most Germans did at that time. His thrust aimed at politics, not religion. But through his political and religious reasoning he established in 1933, a German Reich Christian Church, uniting the Protestant churches to instill faith in a national German Christianity.

Future generations should remember that Adolph Hitler could not have come into power without the support of the Protestant and Catholic churches and the German Christian populace.

The following quotes provides some of Hitler's expressions of his belief in religion, faith, fanaticism, Providence, and even a few of his paraphrasing of the Bible. It by no means represents the totality of Hitler's concerns. To realize the full context of these quotes, I implore the reader to study Mein Kampf.

The purpose of this text intends to dispute the claims made by Christians that Hitler "was an atheist," or "anti-religious," and to reveal the dangers of belief-systems. This text in no way attempts to give endorsement to anti-Semitism.

Quotations from Mein Kampf

continue

I held up Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf as the baseline for his pretend-Christian propaganda campaign.

All you have shown us is the words he used in crafting that baseline.

Well, we both agree that that words exist on paper.

What we disagree about is whether he disingenuously utilized those words to hoodwink the German people doing what he wanted them to.

I can think that I'm a Republican, and pretend that I'm a Republican, for public consumption, like one or two posters around here, but if my actions or day-to-day postings do not match my pretended affiliation, then nobody is going to believe that, in the final analysis.

Same concept at work here, in our own narrow context.

Hitler could think that he was a Christian, and pretend that he was a Christian, but his actions and policies and strategies in an increasing use of historical pre-Christian German Paganism - tweaked for modern consumption - as a replacement State Religion - screams non-Christian for anyone with a pair of ears and a modicum of common sense.

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And, if you have not done so already, you would do well to read Shirer's "Rise and Fall...", which, although exceedingly long, will serve-up additional insights, in opposition to your silly assertions about Hitler and Christianity.

What part of "I don't see Hitler as a Christian. And he did not follow the teachings I learned as a Catholic." do you need help comprehending?

If you READ Mein Kampf, instead of attacking me, you would be going after PC and her ilk for claiming Hitler was a liberal or a 'leftist'...

Hitler was not a liberal. But he was a progressive. That makes him a leftist.

 

[The Rabbi]

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

You've already agreed that judicial review is legitimate. You and PC are flipflopping every other post.

You dont understand the difference between legitimate and something not in the Constitution, do you, dum-dum?

Then you concede that PC is wrong when she claims that courts have NO RIGHT to 'change' the Constitution.

Correct.
The courts have no right to change the Constitution.


Let's be clear.
Your position is that courts can can change the Constitution at will....with the goal of "social justice" or "for the children."

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

 

[Toro]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

Given that gay marriage was a wedge issue that helped re-elect Bush in 2004 to being legal in many states and on the road to being legal everywhere now, it appears that it isn't the Left that losing ground.

The broad sweep of history is to expand rights, whether that is to blacks, women, gays or whomever. One may call that Left or Right, but it is certainly progressive, as old mindsets and prejudices that were held in the past are swept away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

So now you're back to claiming that judicial review is illegal?

lol

I never said that, did I, NYLiar?

I never said that either. But that doesnt stop dum dum from claiming it.

That's his value here....he represents the dishonesty of Liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.