The Progressive Paradox

[P@triot]

There are unknowns in the Constitution that is why the Court exists, but even then the Court reverses itself. Do you have any idea of the cases the Supreme Court is asked to handle each term? Of course it takes only a fraction of those cases, but there is confusion about the laws and the Constitution.

That old progressive false narrative is tired and has played itself out. First of all, nobody creates a law or legally binding contract with "unknowns". Nobody would agree to it, sign it, etc. The U.S. Constitution is the law and the American people would not be able to obey/adhere to the law if it was open for "interpretation".

Second, that is not why the courts exist. The courts were created as a balance of power - to prevent legislation from being introduced that violates the U.S. Constitution. Not to "interpret" the constitution itself.

Thanks for playing...

 

[regent]

There will be about ten thousand cases that the Court will be asked to hear for interpretation

There are unknowns in the Constitution that is why the Court exists, but even then the Court reverses itself. Do you have any idea of the cases the Supreme Court is asked to handle each term? Of course it takes only a fraction of those cases, but there is confusion about the laws and the Constitution.

That old progressive false narrative is tired and has played itself out. First of all, nobody creates a law or legally binding contract with "unknowns". Nobody would agree to it, sign it, etc. The U.S. Constitution is the law and the American people would not be able to obey/adhere to the law if it was open for "interpretation".

Second, that is not why the courts exist. The courts were created as a balance of power - to prevent legislation from being introduced that violates the U.S. Constitution. Not to "interpret" the constitution itself.

Thanks for playing...

The Supreme Court is asked to take about 10,000 cases to interpret each year, to see if they violate the Constitution, the Court may take 100. So what happens to those other undecided cases with their unknowns? How does the Court decide if legislation or other is Constitutional if they don't interpret? How are they a balance of power if they don't interpret?

 

[ptbw forever]

Contradiction would be the lifeblood of his ideology....

Contradiction is the Founders and the Bible authors.

How low is your IQ?

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court is asked to take about 10,000 cases to interpret each year, to see if they violate the Constitution, the Court may take 100. So what happens to those other undecided cases with their unknowns? How does the Court decide if legislation or other is Constitutional if they don't interpret? How are they a balance of power if they don't interpret?

The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not legislation is constitutional. Not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself.

So for instance - their job is to decide whether or not Obamacare is legal. They do not have the authority to decide what the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says and is not open to "interpretation". The Constitution grants no such power to any governing body to "interpret" it.

 

[regent]

The Supreme Court is asked to take about 10,000 cases to interpret each year, to see if they violate the Constitution, the Court may take 100. So what happens to those other undecided cases with their unknowns? How does the Court decide if legislation or other is Constitutional if they don't interpret? How are they a balance of power if they don't interpret?

The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not legislation is constitutional. Not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself.

So for instance - their job is to decide whether or not Obamacare is legal. They do not have the authority to decide what the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says and is not open to "interpretation". The Constitution grants no such power to any governing body to "interpret" it.

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

Thank God that Justice Hughes desire for power is irrelevant. Thank God that all of the power lies with the U.S. Constitution itself.

 

[bripat9643]

On many occasions the courts have struck down Barack Obama's unconstitutional "Executive Orders". Some of which have even been struck down unanimously by the Supreme Court - astounding since two of the justices (Elana Kagen and Sonja Sotomayor) are extreme left-wing activists appointed by Barack Obama himself. Which begs the obvious questions:

• Why is Barack Obama so astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution? He claimed to be a scholar who taught constitutional law. Why doesn't he use the vast resources at his disposal to have someone teach it to him if he is confused?

• If he does know it - then why is he egregiously ignoring the Constitution and violating the law intentionally?

Obama Weak in Court Upholding Executive Actions

Barack studies ways to get around the Constitution, not how to comply with it.

 

[bripat9643]

The Supreme Court is asked to take about 10,000 cases to interpret each year, to see if they violate the Constitution, the Court may take 100. So what happens to those other undecided cases with their unknowns? How does the Court decide if legislation or other is Constitutional if they don't interpret? How are they a balance of power if they don't interpret?

The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not legislation is constitutional. Not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself.

So for instance - their job is to decide whether or not Obamacare is legal. They do not have the authority to decide what the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says and is not open to "interpretation". The Constitution grants no such power to any governing body to "interpret" it.

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

Justice Hughes is a fascist douche bag.

 

[regent]

The Supreme Court is asked to take about 10,000 cases to interpret each year, to see if they violate the Constitution, the Court may take 100. So what happens to those other undecided cases with their unknowns? How does the Court decide if legislation or other is Constitutional if they don't interpret? How are they a balance of power if they don't interpret?

The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not legislation is constitutional. Not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself.

So for instance - their job is to decide whether or not Obamacare is legal. They do not have the authority to decide what the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says and is not open to "interpretation". The Constitution grants no such power to any governing body to "interpret" it.

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

Justice Hughes is a fascist douche bag.

Hughes was a Republican, but you''re .probably right on the Fascist thing.

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court is asked to take about 10,000 cases to interpret each year, to see if they violate the Constitution, the Court may take 100. So what happens to those other undecided cases with their unknowns? How does the Court decide if legislation or other is Constitutional if they don't interpret? How are they a balance of power if they don't interpret?

The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not legislation is constitutional. Not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself.

So for instance - their job is to decide whether or not Obamacare is legal. They do not have the authority to decide what the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says and is not open to "interpretation". The Constitution grants no such power to any governing body to "interpret" it.

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

Justice Hughes is a fascist douche bag.

Hughes was a Republican, but you''re .probably right on the Fascist thing.

There Republican Party is FILLED with RINO's

 

[nat4900]

So you are admitting that Obama is egregiously ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

NO, nitwit.....Our system of checks-n-balances works and works well......In the absence of legislation by a GOP do-nothing congress, Obama has enacted EOs......some have been accepted while others have not....
The system works....no one is "ignoring" the Constitution......that is only the delusions of idiots.

 

[P@triot]

So you are admitting that Obama is egregiously ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

NO, nitwit.....Our system of checks-n-balances works and works well......In the absence of legislation by a GOP do-nothing congress, Obama has enacted EOs......some have been accepted while others have not....
The system works....no one is "ignoring" the Constitution......that is only the delusions of idiots.

Dumb ass...that's not how our system works. You're so stupid, you don't even know what an Executive Order is and what it is for. Here a quick crash course on government:

An Executive Order only legally applies to members of the executive branch. That's it. It's only for the president to officially instruct his branch to implement his policies. And those policies must be within the law. He may not instruct them to do something which there is no law for and he may not instruct them to not enforce existing laws.

That's it you haflwit. Nothing else. He can't issue an Executive Order on amnesty because there are laws about citizenship. He can't issue an Executive Order on the "gun show loophole" because the American people are not members of the executive branch (that would take legislation from Congress).

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant you progressives are about their own system of government.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

But when he issues an Executive Order granting amnesty he has egregiously violated the U.S. Constitution and.....guess what? It goes to court.

Well, if President Obama has signed an Executive Order granting amnesty I would like to read it! Here is a link to the National Archives Executive Order Disposition Tables that will take you to EVERY Executive Order signed by the current President!
Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables

Now look through it, find the EO you claim violated the Constitution by granting amnesty and present it, Rotwell! You won't find it in the EO Disposition Tables! And don't try to conflate the EO's with any other Presidential powers and try dancing and dodging to save face. Man up!

 

[P@triot]

So you are admitting that Obama is egregiously ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

NO, nitwit.....Our system of checks-n-balances works and works well......In the absence of legislation by a GOP do-nothing congress, Obama has enacted EOs......some have been accepted while others have not....The system works....no one is "ignoring" the Constitution......that is only the delusions of idiots.

Leave it to an idiot progressive to defeat their own argument. If "some" of Obama's Executive Orders were "not accepted" then they were unconstitutional. So why would he even issue them in the first place? It means he's either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he blatantly ignores it. Which is it sparky?

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

 

[Dr Grump]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

View attachment 93498

Quoting Thomas doesn't help you argument....in fact, it detracts from it..

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes

View attachment 93498

Quoting Thomas doesn't help you argument....in fact, it detracts from it..

You don't even know who he is. Now go find an Australian website where you can discuss surrendering more of your personal belongings and your rights to people you've hired to rule your life for you.

 

[nat4900]

Leave it to an idiot progressive to defeat their own argument. If "some" of Obama's Executive Orders were "not accepted" then they were unconstitutional. So why would he even issue them in the first place? It means he's either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he blatantly ignores it. Which is it sparky?

I cannot fix your stupidity on this forum..........not worth the effort......I'll let others judge both your inane argument ANDyour desperation.

 

[P@triot]

Leave it to an idiot progressive to defeat their own argument. If "some" of Obama's Executive Orders were "not accepted" then they were unconstitutional. So why would he even issue them in the first place? It means he's either ignorant of the U.S. Constitution or he blatantly ignores it. Which is it sparky?

I cannot fix your stupidity on this forum..........not worth the effort......I'll let others judge both your inane argument ANDyour desperation.

Bwahahahahaha! That's progressive code for "shit...I just got owned by a conservative and I'm left without a response".