The Most Unconstitutional Administration

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Equal protection under the law is present in the 14th. And States lack the authority to violate that prinicple. If they apply marriage laws in violation of that legal principle they run into problems with the 14th amendment. And its the 14th that the USSC cited when overturning same sex marriage bans from the States.

That's how it stands. You may disagree, but the legal precedent on the matter doesn't change because of it.
There was equal protection. No heterosexual could marry someone of the same gender. Ditto with homosexual. Every homosexual had exactly the same right to marry as every heterosexual.
The Court divined a new right of gay marriage out of whole cloth. Wrongly, of course. No one even conceived of a right to gay marriage 30 years ago. Much less 100.

Sometimes people get things wrong for a very long time.

Separate but equal is not equal protection. That is well established.
 
It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Equal protection under the law is present in the 14th. And States lack the authority to violate that prinicple. If they apply marriage laws in violation of that legal principle they run into problems with the 14th amendment. And its the 14th that the USSC cited when overturning same sex marriage bans from the States.

That's how it stands. You may disagree, but the legal precedent on the matter doesn't change because of it.
There was equal protection. No heterosexual could marry someone of the same gender. Ditto with homosexual. Every homosexual had exactly the same right to marry as every heterosexual.
The Court divined a new right of gay marriage out of whole cloth. Wrongly, of course. No one even conceived of a right to gay marriage 30 years ago. Much less 100.
It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Equal protection under the law is present in the 14th. And States lack the authority to violate that prinicple. If they apply marriage laws in violation of that legal principle they run into problems with the 14th amendment. And its the 14th that the USSC cited when overturning same sex marriage bans from the States.

That's how it stands. You may disagree, but the legal precedent on the matter doesn't change because of it.

There was equal protection. No heterosexual could marry someone of the same gender. Ditto with homosexual. Every homosexual had exactly the same right to marry as every heterosexual.

That's the logic used to defend interracial marriage bans, as such bans applied to blacks and whites equally, then there had to be 'equal protection'. The courts rejected that reasoning both in regard to interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans. Holding that the standards themselves must meet constitutional muster. And gay marriage bans didn't.

That's how it stands.

The Court divined a new right of gay marriage out of whole cloth. Wrongly, of course. No one even conceived of a right to gay marriage 30 years ago. Much less 100.

The right to marry has long been recognized. And the right to equal protection had long been recognized. The court predictably recognized both regarding gay marriage in a move that was so well telegraphed and so predictable that Scalia himself called in it 2013.

And the courts got it right of course. As there's no reason to deny gays and lesbians the same rights that everyone else enjoys. I give it 20 years before your ilk will talk about Republicans championed the issue of gay rights, and it was always democrats that opposed it.
 
Only as guilty as Bill Cosby.

"The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

More important, however, is the evidence that Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence.

In other words, Hillary has violated women in her lust for power. Hillary Clinton raped Bill’s female victims psychologically as much as her husband did physically. Will some of these women come forward to challenge Hillary Clinton over her husband’s actions and her role in their cover-up?"
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past


Would you vote for Bill Cosby?
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

So you believe that GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes because they have been accused of committing war crimes.



And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


In this post, it's Trick #2 on display:

The subject is if a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. You believe they are. You believe Clinton to be guilty of rape because he's been accused of rape.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have been accused of war crimes. Using your standard, they are guilty of war crimes.

You can have any standards you want except double standards, unless of course you just want to look like an idiot.

btw, also according to your standards, the Duke lacrosse players were guilty until eventually proven innocent.

I don't recall many of your rightwing pals taking that position at the time. Nor did you I presume.


Hardly, NYLiar.

This is not a court of law, with punishment to follow.

When any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat bootlicker is presented with the list of Bill Clintons rape and sexual misbehaviors, the knee-jerk response of the jerk is the expected: "But...but (sputter- sputter) he was never convicted in any court of law!!


This, of course, is a prime example of sophistry, the use of fallacious arguments, with the intention of deceiving. (i.e., the jerk is a liar.)


This is not a court of law, and the argument does not end with a jail sentence....sadly.

It is the court of real world experience, and is based on one's judgment based on their experience and knowledge, and, especially, the past behavior of the individual in question.

The type of verdict demanded does not require that of a court, it is the court of public opinion.


Based on Clinton's history, is the charge that he refused to acknowledge his prey's refusal for sexual intercouse...possible or impossible?

.......probable or improbable?

.....exceptional or expected?


Has he been shown to be a liar? Yes, in fact in a court of law.


The answer is clear.

"Bill 'the rapist' Clinton" is an accurate description.



The same procedure should be used to examine as to whether charges would even be brought against one of his lofty political stature...and political party.

That question requires even less effort to answer.....as it has been answered previously, in an even more serious matter: responsibility in the death of a young woman.

I refer to "The Liberal Lion," Ted Kennedy.



An auxiliary question might be 'what type of individual would support rapists and murderers as mentioned above?

This, too, is an easy question to answer.
Raise your paw.
Tjere are subtleties that NYFraudster cannot grasp. When sufficient evidence accumulates we can make a reasonable guess as to what happened, absent a court verdict (by that standard OJ Simpson never committed murder).

What an odd change of heart you've had, compared to:

"what happened to innocent until proven guilty?"

The shameful right wing spinning of the Charleston shooting | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

and to:

"In this country someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty."

IMF Chief Accused of Sexual Assault at NYC Hotel | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.


"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Well, you better take up that argument with super girl, because the 2A, also states that right is in regards to a well regulated militia, when she then threw in that term
:desk:So, then, you only agree to the strict limits of the 2nd amendment to keep & bear arms solely to a well regulated militia. And only to muskets that use gun powder?

And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's?



"And was that opening sentence that began with "[Liberal judicial activism] your added words & brackets, or Renquist's (sic)? "

1. I provided the link, but, you where too lazy to click same.....must be a Liberal.

2. Having, no doubt, gone to government schools.....here is another thing you never learned:
Brackets: "These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote."
What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

3. I reduced the quote so the reader wouldn't have to go back an find out the meaning of reference to 'the brief writer.'

"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..."

Note....the meaning of Rehnquist's (spell it correctly) instruction is not lost via the brackets.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.


"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?




You're a fool, and I've revealed you as such.

I used brackets correctly...you were too stupid to recognize the usage.

"You added your own opinion."
That's a lie.

I did no such thing.
Or....show that the brackets changed the meaning of the quote.


Now....get back to the last seat in the dumb row.

LOL. You adding the word LIBERAL within those brackets was your opinion & was not part of the original writings & any Professor would have nailed you on that.
 
Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.


"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

You forgot the preface- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... Take up that argument with super girl, because she already driveled on about that being the National Guard I think, & even went so far as to embolden the wording that only had the word MALE in the details. I'm assuming, since black males were property at the time, they were excluded from owning such things.
 
"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

You forgot the preface- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... Take up that argument with super girl, because she already driveled on about that being the National Guard I think, & even went so far as to embolden the wording that only had the word MALE in the details. I'm assuming, since black males were property at the time, they were excluded from owning such things.
Are you trying to see how many fallacies you can fit in one post?
The preface is the purpose of the amendment, but not the controlling condition. Scalia went through all of this in his opinion in Heller. Read it sometime.
Black males were not property. Slaves were property. Not all black males were slaves. In fact the first casualty of hte Revolutionary War was a black male.
 
"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it. That's why I asked... you silly silly woman... yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part.


"yes, I know about the brackets- you added in your own opinion. I wanted you to actually admit it. As for the misspelling- weak, very weak argument & deflection on your part."

1. If you did understand the use of brackets, you would not have lied in this post: ". I wanted you to actually admit it."

2.Lie number two:
"you added in your own opinion."
No, I did not.
Or....can you show how the words in the bracket alter the meaning of the quote.


3. "Actually I did open the PDF & it was several pages. I looked & did not see it."
Let's just chalk this up to Liberal laziness.
Try page 406 in the thesis.

It doesn't matter if it 'alters' it or not. What you should have done, was c/p what was written--- as is--- & perhaps included the page #. You added your own opinion. Although I did know, others might not have. And BTW, I am not a liberal, & am not a partisan stooge like you certainly are showing yourself to be.

So, yes or no - should white males ONLY have the right to bear arms per the 14th Amendment?


You're a fool, and I've revealed you as such.

I used brackets correctly...you were too stupid to recognize the usage.

"You added your own opinion."
That's a lie.

I did no such thing.
Or....show that the brackets changed the meaning of the quote.


Now....get back to the last seat in the dumb row.
Looks like Playtime is the latest prison bitch of the conservatives here. Someone filled with misconceptions and therefore cannot make a serious argument.

Dude, you have a Confederate flag in your avatar. I take you as seriously as I would a slug.
Translation: I am getting pwned from all sides so better dismiss someone.
You couldnt argue your way out of a paper bag.
 
Haven't you also taken the opposite position, that being regarding what you call the 'myth of rape' on college campuses?

Haven't you attacked women for falsely accusing men of rape?

You're conflating actual physical rape, with a guy stumbling across an irrational female, not realizing what he was looking at... and asked her out..., complimented her shapely ass, opened a door for her... or had drunken sex with her and woke up to find out that she 'identified' that behavior are 'rape'. Which is, of course... NOT RAPE!

No, I'm pointing out that when PC has considered it convenient and/or supportive of her agenda, she has taken the opposite position on rape accusations.

Based on the Clinton position both you and she have taken,

in the Duke lacrosse players incident, had not further evidence and fact emerged in that case,

the Duke players would have been guilty solely by virtue of the original accusation.

What you're again pointing out is that you lack the cognitive means of a turnip.

There was no rape in the Duke LaCross Case, there was no chance that there was a rape by the Duke LaCross players, there was no history of sexual violence by any of the individuals charged, there was only the LONG history of lying and illicit sexual behavior by the lowly black hoe who leveled the charge. That Al Sharpton was the one pushing it, only further added to the certainty that the charges were false.

There is no potential comparison of the two, there is no equity in the two issues and your claiming that there is only adds to the certainty that such is ludicrous nonsense.

Bill Clinton denies having raped Broderick, therefore, given that Slick Willy is widely respected, by the Left, for his skills of deception; as an inveterate liar, we therefore know Bill Clinton is lying.

Broderick had nothing to gain by leveling the charge, has gained nothing as a result of it and will gain nothing from it. The net to Broderick for admitting that Clinton Raped Her, is a LOSS. She admitted it, KNOWING that it would be a loss to her. She did not admit that Clinton raped her for gain... she admitted it as a means to do ALL SHE COULD to prevent OTHER WOMEN FROM BEING RAPED BY BILL CLINTON.

It's not even a remotely debatable point, William "The Bubba" is a degenerate, and a proven RAPIST. He is also a known PEDOPHILE; this determined by his close friendship with a known pedophile, and numerous trips to Pedophile Island, where it has long since been established that the Island was used to provide underaged females for sex. Bubba was THERE.... Bubba was having sex with CHILDREN!

 
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

You forgot the preface- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... Take up that argument with super girl, because she already driveled on about that being the National Guard I think, & even went so far as to embolden the wording that only had the word MALE in the details. I'm assuming, since black males were property at the time, they were excluded from owning such things.
Are you trying to see how many fallacies you can fit in one post?
The preface is the purpose of the amendment, but not the controlling condition. Scalia went through all of this in his opinion in Heller. Read it sometime.
Black males were not property. Slaves were property. Not all black males were slaves. In fact the first casualty of hte Revolutionary War was a black male.

Ah, Scalia... Cheney's hunting bud. Is this where I point out your spelling mistake? I understand that super girl likes to do that. Don't you think it's a tad ironic that you are using a Supreme Court Justice to defend & explain part of the Constitution under a debate about SC Justices interpreting the Constitution?

The issue here is not that the SCOTUS is not tasked with determining if a lower court's decision fits within the Confines of the Constituion, or if Legislation meets the limits on Government power enumerated in the Constitution.

The issue is the notion that the SCOTUS is a SUPREME LEGISLATURE and that they are empowered to MAKE LAW based upon the VOTE of Nine Unelected, Tenured Judges... .

The Constitution does not provide for such power and the Left's use of the Court in this way, is unacceptable. And it is unacceptable because it fails the service of Justice, which undermines the consent of the governed, which must lead directly to civil war.

You pretend that there's some alternative... even as you see it being initiated by the communists of the "Homie's Lives Matter" cult.

They are selling NOTHING BUT: "WE CAINT GET NO JUSTICE FROM WHITEY!"

They are being contested by WHITEY... Who knows that Leftists in the Judiciary have sold them down the river, having found an Unlimited Federal Right, held by the Federal Government to TAX WITHOUT LIMITS... as a means to sustain socialized Medicine, and having just unleashed unfettered evil ont he nation in their recent Federal Licensing of DEGENERACY.

Now... how do ya think this is going to work itself out?

Do ya feel that the Communists are going to get tired and stop assaulting Police Officers? Or do ya think that they're going to continue to escalate things until someone picks up obama's notion of Nationalizing Local Police Authority?

And when that happens, what do ya think the Americans are going to do? Ya think they're going to just sit there and take that? They're going to see those Federal Cops as "The Enemy" and they're going to kill those cops as quickly as they walk out that cop station.

Now what do ya suppose comes after that?

The New Gay-Amazon Federal Military will come to Cities all over the US to help their fellow gay-lovin' feminists Federal Cops out and its BERUIT ON AN EXPONENTIAL SCALE.

And all because of people like YOU! Who lack the cognitive acuity God gave a grape, who are incapable of so much as recognizing objectivity... who can't find a dam' thing to respect that is not THEM.

Now... you're probably askin', "When is all this suppose to go down?"

Who can know that...? But I'd ask ya to tell me where the Market closed today. It started off, down 1000 pts, I heard somewhere after lunch that it had come back to near scratch, but my guess is that we're getting close to the inevitable... and it closed down and likely way down.

The point being, that the obama Cult has played out ALL of the Keynesian tricks... there's nothing left for the idiots to do... so we're extremely close to economic catastrophe which will make '08 look like Nirvana.

It's entirely possible that the Chinese will dump their US Currency reserves, which will trigger a hyperinflation bomb on the US Dollar and over night, the US Dollar will not be worth a dam' thing.

And if that happens... the Supply Chain will dry up almost instantly. And Life as we know it, will be over.

The Cities will explode in riots, the Military will have no means to effect much of anything as the entire US military is, thanks to obama, now roughly the same number of people as every man woman and child in Chicago... . And THAT is IT. Reserves through active... .

But hey... You've got a Community Activist with a dubious past and a propensity for alleviating that which hampers our enemies and playing golf, at the helm. I'm sure he's got a handle on it... .

Why look what he's done for the Middle East... .
 
Last edited:
You appear to be getting you ass kicked here.
It's pretty simple: judges go by what is written in the Constitution. They do not invent things seen in the "emanations and penumbras."

If the Constitution is not to be considered a living document, then it needs to be interpreted exactly as written with no exceptions. If for example "gay marriage" is not to be considered as "equal protection" under the law, because homosexuality was not a consideration when the Constitution was written, then that would also mean such things such as to right to bear arms must also be strictly limited to the exact wording & any American citizen other than white males can own firearms.
Marriage is present in the 10th amendment and is clearly a power of the states, not the federal government.
The 2A means exactly what it says: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It in no way restricts that right to white males.

You forgot the preface- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... Take up that argument with super girl, because she already driveled on about that being the National Guard I think, & even went so far as to embolden the wording that only had the word MALE in the details. I'm assuming, since black males were property at the time, they were excluded from owning such things.
Are you trying to see how many fallacies you can fit in one post?
The preface is the purpose of the amendment, but not the controlling condition. Scalia went through all of this in his opinion in Heller. Read it sometime.
Black males were not property. Slaves were property. Not all black males were slaves. In fact the first casualty of hte Revolutionary War was a black male.

Ah, Scalia... Cheney's hunting bud. Is this where I point out your spelling mistake? I understand that super girl likes to do that. Don't you think it's a tad ironic that you are using a Supreme Court Justice to defend & explain part of the Constitution under a debate about SC Justices interpreting the Constitution?
There's no irony, Einstein. Scalia explains the Amendment very precisely, relying on the actual wording and what those words meant to the Founders.
Is this where you go cry like a little girl?
 
OK boys and girls. I just waded through pages and pages of crap. 132 off topic posts were deleted. KNOCK IT OFF! You all know who you are, if I see more of this nonsense, points will be handed out.
 

Forum List

Back
Top