What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Semantics of Constitutionality

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
7,977
Reaction score
2,840
Points
325
First Amendment-Establishment Clause.

Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.


You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
3,443
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,940
Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.


You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.
Should have gone through the Amendment Proceedure. The Courts CAN'T make law. But they do when Libs are in charge. 60 Million babies have been murdered because of "Roe".
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
3,443
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,940
Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.


You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.
PS--Did that decision make New Jersey a Catholic State? Case Closed.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
7,977
Reaction score
2,840
Points
325
Should have gone through the Amendment Proceedure. The Courts CAN'T make law. But they do when Libs are in charge. 60 Million babies have been murdered because of "Roe".

So you admit that under your Originalist view there is no prohibition from the Muslims in Michigan banning Christianity?

The problem is that you like almost everyone views the Constitution like a Buffet. You go down the line and take what you like and reject the rest.

That isn’t how it works. The Constitution is a tapestry. When you pull one thread out you weaken and diminish the whole thing.

You have to embrace and vigorously defend every bit. Even the boys you don’t like. Especially those parts. Because if you don’t then you’ll find yourself victimized later.

I will always side with the Constitution. I will always argue for maximum restraint on the Government. I will always argue for maximum freedom for the citizens.

Not just the parts I like.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
7,977
Reaction score
2,840
Points
325
PS--Did that decision make New Jersey a Catholic State? Case Closed.

Actually. You proved my point. The foundation of your argument was a Supreme Court Decision. Not written in the Constitution.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
4,041
Reaction score
469
Points
63
So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
The right decision here is to stigmatize whores who spread their legs in a swine frenzy, and then don't know what to do about it.
In right-wing politics, there should be no such thing as abortion exept if it is the result of rape
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
4,041
Reaction score
469
Points
63
As practice shows, women are generally not capable of responsible behavior that takes into account the consequences, therefore, sex for women should be available only with the direct permission of the parents, and these parents should not be licentious. This is the protection of rights.
Freedom has nothing to do with a pigsty, where boars arbitrarily cover available females.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
73,989
Reaction score
5,031
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
As practice shows, women are generally not capable of responsible behavior that takes into account the consequences, therefore, sex for women should be available only with the direct permission of the parents, and these parents should not be licentious. This is the protection of rights.
Freedom has nothing to do with a pigsty, where boars arbitrarily cover available females.
What practice? How many gangs of women roam the streets looking for guys to "empty out" so it won't ever occur to them to try to rape "nice girls".
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top