The special insanity of it all

[ThoughtCrimes]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

Amendment II appears "crystal clear" to you ONLY because you are either ignorant of Justice Scalia's delivery of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller OR you're one of those know-it-all, pick and chose 2A RWGN "Constitutionalists" claiming that Judicial Review is not one of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but likely both!

Here is what Scalia wrote word for word, Mr. Constitutional expert, which destroys your ignorant delusion;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

 

[P@triot]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

Amendment II appears "crystal clear" to you ONLY because you are either ignorant of the Justice Scalia's delivery of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller OR you're one of those know-it-all, pick and chose 2A RWGN "Constitutionalists" claiming that Judicial Review is not one of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but likely both!

Here is what Scalia wrote word for word, Mr. Constitutional expert, which destroys your ignorant delusion;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

Fortunately for American's, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself.

Of course, you don't even know what it is you don't know (having never read the U.S. Constitution), so I don't expect you to be cognizant of this reality.

But that aside - "unlimited" (though it unquestionably is) never came up in this discussion. What came up was that Candy believes only a member of a militia may have a firearm (even though she knows that's not true).

But...I would love for you to cite which section of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to decide what the Constitution says and what it does not say. No? Yeah....didn't think so. Just as well - even if you had made up or intentionally misinterpreted a section to support your absurd position, I would have destroyed you with something that would have made you look completely foolish.

 

[candycorn]

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?

Nearly 100% of the time. Not always but almost 100% of the time when conserve-hate-ives are confronted with clearly superior ideas; the first thing they do is miscahracterize the idea.

At no point did I say someone would decide what the constitution would say. Explicitly I said we need to add voice to the document where it is silent so that shenanigans like what the majority leaders and Speakers of the House routinely do today will be expressly prohibited. For example, the Senate could never hold a hearing again to replace any Supreme Court justice; there is nothing constitutionally forcing them to do so; is there?

This is what needs to be remedied.

Your assinine argument is that we'd get into interpretation and such is just a lie you dreamed up.

The reason I make it a regulary scheduled event is that it is both in the finest traditions of the American Republic (every 10 years, we re-balance the EC, we have elections on regular intervals, etc..) and that if you wait for a constitutional convention, politics can come into it and thwart it from ever taking hold.

I have no problem relying on 3/4 of the States or congressional mandates. I have a feeling that once the American people hear the ideas to further perfect the document, they will be on board.

 

[candycorn]

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

Again - you know you're being disingenuous and playing games here. I've quoted the Constitution word-for-word. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

No matter how long you play this game, you're still losing. You keep thinking if you play long enough, you'll be able to catch up and win somehow. But the facts are the facts. The militia was the why. The right of the people was the what. The why is just the reasoning behind the what.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really am. But it doesn't change the reality and no twist you attempt to put on it changes the reality.

If the words are still valid, so is the reasoning. Hence you want a gun, join a militia. It’s as clear as can be.

It is as clear as can be: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Black and white sweetie. Indisputable. And lets be honest, we both know you know it. This is just some frivolous game you feel you have to play because you have an irrational fear of arms.

Here's the thing - we're talking about rights...right? Well it clearly states that the right is with the people. You can't go back 18 paragraphs in the Constitution and declare something null and void because it's not stated 18 paragraphs earlier

The word militia is in there for a reason. You can ignore it. The rest of us do not want to just pretend the document says something different.

 

[candycorn]

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

The U.S. is the greatest place on earth. But we've failed recently here because liberals like you have fucked the American people over with your criminal activities. We're $19 trillion in debt. The worst in the entire world. In fact, more than double the next closest. You don't consider that failure? Really? And it was $10 trillion when Obama took over. He's added nearly as much to the U.S. debt in a mere 7 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. So don't even attempt to blame conservatives on that one.

We've had our Constitutional rights stripped from us. Liberals force people of faith to go against God and the Bible and take part in gay weddings (much likes muslim maniacs force people to partake in all parts of their ideology). Obamacare forces people to purchase a good or service where no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Now your side believes that man should be able to walk into the locker rooms and restrooms of women and smack little girls in the face with their penis. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Man....you are the undisputed queen of disingenuous.

Feel free to leave anytime you want.

You're the one who hates the Constitution and the U.S. way of life - you leave. Anyone who disingenuously claims "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't give the people a right to keep and bear arms should most certainly find another country to live in.

And anyone who thinks that the U.S. Constitution should automatically be altered every 50 years by her instead of going through the legal amendment process should also find another country to live in.

Anyone who thinks that term limits--ones that tell you you can't run for office or you can't vote for someone whom you want--obviously are at odds with the Constitution. One person; one vote. No conditions.

 

[P@triot]

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?

Nearly 100% of the time. Not always but almost 100% of the time when conserve-hate-ives are confronted with clearly superior ideas; the first thing they do is miscahracterize the idea.

At no point did I say someone would decide what the constitution would say. Explicitly I said we need to add voice to the document where it is silent so that shenanigans like what the majority leaders and Speakers of the House routinely do today will be expressly prohibited. For example, the Senate could never hold a hearing again to replace any Supreme Court justice; there is nothing constitutionally forcing them to do so; is there?

This is what needs to be remedied.

Your assinine argument is that we'd get into interpretation and such is just a lie you dreamed up.

The reason I make it a regulary scheduled event is that it is both in the finest traditions of the American Republic (every 10 years, we re-balance the EC, we have elections on regular intervals, etc..) and that if you wait for a constitutional convention, politics can come into it and thwart it from ever taking hold.

I have no problem relying on 3/4 of the States or congressional mandates. I have a feeling that once the American people hear the ideas to further perfect the document, they will be on board.

Amazing. I said I agree with you so long as the Constitution is legally amended. You come back with "if you wait for administrators and legislators to do X, Y, and Z then it doesn't happen". That's a pretty clear statement that you want to usurp the Constitution. I point that out and then you claim I "mischaracterize".

Maybe your problem is that you're unable to communicate the idea in your head clearly and concisely??? My God you are such a woman. Just like my wife - completely incapable of getting what's inside of your head accurately to the outside world - and then blaming everyone else for it.

So to review - I agree 100% with nearly everything you've said. Regular review of the Constitution. Changes as needed. Where I differ from you is that any changes during those 50 year reviews must be made through legal amendments.

And I especially agree with you that a chamber leader should not be able to block a vote.

 

[P@triot]

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

The U.S. is the greatest place on earth. But we've failed recently here because liberals like you have fucked the American people over with your criminal activities. We're $19 trillion in debt. The worst in the entire world. In fact, more than double the next closest. You don't consider that failure? Really? And it was $10 trillion when Obama took over. He's added nearly as much to the U.S. debt in a mere 7 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. So don't even attempt to blame conservatives on that one.

We've had our Constitutional rights stripped from us. Liberals force people of faith to go against God and the Bible and take part in gay weddings (much likes muslim maniacs force people to partake in all parts of their ideology). Obamacare forces people to purchase a good or service where no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Now your side believes that man should be able to walk into the locker rooms and restrooms of women and smack little girls in the face with their penis. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Man....you are the undisputed queen of disingenuous.

Feel free to leave anytime you want.

You're the one who hates the Constitution and the U.S. way of life - you leave. Anyone who disingenuously claims "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't give the people a right to keep and bear arms should most certainly find another country to live in.

And anyone who thinks that the U.S. Constitution should automatically be altered every 50 years by her instead of going through the legal amendment process should also find another country to live in.

Anyone who thinks that term limits--ones that tell you you can't run for office or you can't vote for someone whom you want--obviously are at odds with the Constitution. One person; one vote. No conditions.

Uh....you do realize that there are term limits for the President of the United States, don't you?

 

[P@triot]

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

Again - you know you're being disingenuous and playing games here. I've quoted the Constitution word-for-word. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

No matter how long you play this game, you're still losing. You keep thinking if you play long enough, you'll be able to catch up and win somehow. But the facts are the facts. The militia was the why. The right of the people was the what. The why is just the reasoning behind the what.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really am. But it doesn't change the reality and no twist you attempt to put on it changes the reality.

If the words are still valid, so is the reasoning. Hence you want a gun, join a militia. It’s as clear as can be.

It is as clear as can be: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Black and white sweetie. Indisputable. And lets be honest, we both know you know it. This is just some frivolous game you feel you have to play because you have an irrational fear of arms.

Here's the thing - we're talking about rights...right? Well it clearly states that the right is with the people. You can't go back 18 paragraphs in the Constitution and declare something null and void because it's not stated 18 paragraphs earlier

The word militia is in there for a reason. You can ignore it. The rest of us do not want to just pretend the document says something different.

Yeah....if you go further back. But then again, there are a ton of words if you go further back. For instance, the very first word in the Bill of Rights is "Congress". So why don't you just claim that only Congress has the right to bear arms?

"the right of the people"

Furthermore, why didn't they say "the right of the soldiers" or "right of the militia" or "right if the Minutemen"??? Come on....you know. We all know. There's no sense in pretending any more. Say it with me now....the right of the people

 

[P@triot]

It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

Amendment II appears "crystal clear" to you ONLY because you are either ignorant of the Justice Scalia's delivery of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller OR you're one of those know-it-all, pick and chose 2A RWGN "Constitutionalists" claiming that Judicial Review is not one of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but likely both!

Here is what Scalia wrote word for word, Mr. Constitutional expert, which destroys your ignorant delusion;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

Fortunately for American's, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself.

Of course, you don't even know what it is you don't know (having never read the U.S. Constitution), so I don't expect you to be cognizant of this reality.

But that aside - "unlimited" (though it unquestionably is) never came up in this discussion. What came up was that Candy believes only a member of a militia may have a firearm (even though she knows that's not true).

But...I would love for you to cite which section of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to decide what the Constitution says and what it does not say. No? Yeah....didn't think so. Just as well - even if you had made up or intentionally misinterpreted a section to support your absurd position, I would have destroyed you with something that would have made you look completely foolish.

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

 

[P@triot]

Anyone who thinks that term limits--ones that tell you you can't run for office or you can't vote for someone whom you want--obviously are at odds with the Constitution.

“The second feature I dislike, and strongly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be reelected if he may be reelected. He is then an officer for life.” – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (December 20, 1787)

Oops.... And my dear? Before you go off half-cocked and say something you'll regret, please allow me to give you a quick history lesson. Thomas Jefferson personally penned the Declaration of Independence. And while he was sent to France to request their assistance in the Reveloutionary War while the Constitution was written, he was the architect behind the entire structure of U.S. government. They used his ideas, his writings, his legislations from his time in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there for the convention - representing Thomas Jefferson's entire plan. Furthermore, the Constitution has never seen a better friend or a more ardent defender, than Thomas Jefferson. So think very carefully before responding.

 

[P@triot]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

Amendment II appears "crystal clear" to you ONLY because you are either ignorant of the Justice Scalia's delivery of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller OR you're one of those know-it-all, pick and chose 2A RWGN "Constitutionalists" claiming that Judicial Review is not one of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but likely both!

Here is what Scalia wrote word for word, Mr. Constitutional expert, which destroys your ignorant delusion;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

Fortunately for American's, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself.

Of course, you don't even know what it is you don't know (having never read the U.S. Constitution), so I don't expect you to be cognizant of this reality.

But that aside - "unlimited" (though it unquestionably is) never came up in this discussion. What came up was that Candy believes only a member of a militia may have a firearm (even though she knows that's not true).

But...I would love for you to cite which section of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to decide what the Constitution says and what it does not say. No? Yeah....didn't think so. Just as well - even if you had made up or intentionally misinterpreted a section to support your absurd position, I would have destroyed you with something that would have made you look completely foolish.

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

So I say...."oh yeah, you have a red Lamborghin? Prove it. Show it to me" and you hold up a white bunny and go "see?"

Maybe you didn't understand the question? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court (or any governing body) the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself?

If you're having trouble reading the U.S. Constitution for the first time here, ask an adult for help.

 

[P@triot]

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)

 

[candycorn]

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?

Nearly 100% of the time. Not always but almost 100% of the time when conserve-hate-ives are confronted with clearly superior ideas; the first thing they do is miscahracterize the idea.

At no point did I say someone would decide what the constitution would say. Explicitly I said we need to add voice to the document where it is silent so that shenanigans like what the majority leaders and Speakers of the House routinely do today will be expressly prohibited. For example, the Senate could never hold a hearing again to replace any Supreme Court justice; there is nothing constitutionally forcing them to do so; is there?

This is what needs to be remedied.

Your assinine argument is that we'd get into interpretation and such is just a lie you dreamed up.

The reason I make it a regulary scheduled event is that it is both in the finest traditions of the American Republic (every 10 years, we re-balance the EC, we have elections on regular intervals, etc..) and that if you wait for a constitutional convention, politics can come into it and thwart it from ever taking hold.

I have no problem relying on 3/4 of the States or congressional mandates. I have a feeling that once the American people hear the ideas to further perfect the document, they will be on board.

Amazing. I said I agree with you so long as the Constitution is legally amended. You come back with "if you wait for administrators and legislators to do X, Y, and Z then it doesn't happen". That's a pretty clear statement that you want to usurp the Constitution. I point that out and then you claim I "mischaracterize".

Maybe your problem is that you're unable to communicate the idea in your head clearly and concisely??? My God you are such a woman. Just like my wife - completely incapable of getting what's inside of your head accurately to the outside world - and then blaming everyone else for it.

So to review - I agree 100% with nearly everything you've said. Regular review of the Constitution. Changes as needed. Where I differ from you is that any changes during those 50 year reviews must be made through legal amendments.

And I especially agree with you that a chamber leader should not be able to block a vote.

Good to see you've started thinking. First time for everything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

Amendment II appears "crystal clear" to you ONLY because you are either ignorant of the Justice Scalia's delivery of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller OR you're one of those know-it-all, pick and chose 2A RWGN "Constitutionalists" claiming that Judicial Review is not one of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but likely both!

Here is what Scalia wrote word for word, Mr. Constitutional expert, which destroys your ignorant delusion;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

Fortunately for American's, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself.

Of course, you don't even know what it is you don't know (having never read the U.S. Constitution), so I don't expect you to be cognizant of this reality.

But that aside - "unlimited" (though it unquestionably is) never came up in this discussion. What came up was that Candy believes only a member of a militia may have a firearm (even though she knows that's not true).

But...I would love for you to cite which section of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to decide what the Constitution says and what it does not say. No? Yeah....didn't think so. Just as well - even if you had made up or intentionally misinterpreted a section to support your absurd position, I would have destroyed you with something that would have made you look completely foolish.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong and ridiculous.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

Amendment II appears "crystal clear" to you ONLY because you are either ignorant of the Justice Scalia's delivery of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller OR you're one of those know-it-all, pick and chose 2A RWGN "Constitutionalists" claiming that Judicial Review is not one of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but likely both!

Here is what Scalia wrote word for word, Mr. Constitutional expert, which destroys your ignorant delusion;

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

Fortunately for American's, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself.

Of course, you don't even know what it is you don't know (having never read the U.S. Constitution), so I don't expect you to be cognizant of this reality.

But that aside - "unlimited" (though it unquestionably is) never came up in this discussion. What came up was that Candy believes only a member of a militia may have a firearm (even though she knows that's not true).

But...I would love for you to cite which section of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (or any other governing body) the power to decide what the Constitution says and what it does not say. No? Yeah....didn't think so. Just as well - even if you had made up or intentionally misinterpreted a section to support your absurd position, I would have destroyed you with something that would have made you look completely foolish.

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

So I say...."oh yeah, you have a red Lamborghin? Prove it. Show it to me" and you hold up a white bunny and go "see?"

Maybe you didn't understand the question? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court (or any governing body) the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself?

If you're having trouble reading the U.S. Constitution for the first time here, ask an adult for help.

You obviously don't have the comprehension to understand the meaning of "APPELLATE POWERS". Or you just want to play the village idiot and pretend that SCOTUS is powerless to employ their "appellate powers" as the final arbiter of both "law and fact" as granted in the Constitution at ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2.

You are stating that you are right and all the decisions of the Supreme Court are null and void since the Court heard its first case. You are also implying that every single possible contingency which may arise in law must be written down within the four corners of the Document or it's outside the jurisdiction of ALL the Article III Courts.

You make all these assertions, but you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence without any substantiation to ground it in fact. You're a fucking fool!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)

Jefferson was not there in Philadelphia when the Constitution was written. But Jefferson, really didn't agree with a number of decisions of Chief Justice Marshall during that period so his comments are only his opinion and not having any more weight that other opinions without substantiation. His opinion is NOT part of the Constitution is it! Your dodge and deflection is duly noted shit for brains. Now stay on topic fool, and stop trying to move the goal posts, idiot!

Your task is to acknowledge or disavow the appellate powers of SCOTUS, remember?

 

[candycorn]

Anyone who thinks that term limits--ones that tell you you can't run for office or you can't vote for someone whom you want--obviously are at odds with the Constitution.

“The second feature I dislike, and strongly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be reelected if he may be reelected. He is then an officer for life.” – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (December 20, 1787)

Oops.... And my dear? Before you go off half-cocked and say something you'll regret, please allow me to give you a quick history lesson. Thomas Jefferson personally penned the Declaration of Independence. And while he was sent to France to request their assistance in the Reveloutionary War while the Constitution was written, he was the architect behind the entire structure of U.S. government. They used his ideas, his writings, his legislations from his time in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there for the convention - representing Thomas Jefferson's entire plan. Furthermore, the Constitution has never seen a better friend or a more ardent defender, than Thomas Jefferson. So think very carefully before responding.

Don't like the federal government telling me I can't vote for someone who I think is doing a bang up job. Sorry. But then again, I'm a pretty independent person who doesn't like to defer to the State to tell me who I can vote for. I'm not sure why you like having your rights usurped like that.

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson got most of what he attempted right. Nobody is right 100% of the time and if he was responsible for the term limits on Presidents...well, he was wrong on that. Or do you think he was infallable?

 

[P@triot]

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)

Jefferson was not there in Philadelphia when the Constitution was written. But Jefferson, really didn't agree with a number of decisions of Chief Justice Marshall during that period so his comments are only his opinion and not having any more weight that other opinions without substantiation. His opinion is NOT part of the Constitution is it! Your dodge and deflection is duly noted shit for brains. Now stay on topic fool, and stop trying to move the goal posts, idiot!

Except that Thomas Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. He didn't have to be in the room junior (he was in France lobbying for their assistance with the Revolutionary War) when the Constitution was written to be the one who designed it. They used Jefferson's ideas, his writings, his legislation while in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there the entire time representing Jefferson's voice for his design.

Considering he's the architect behind the entire damn thing - I would say his voice carries more than every U.S. citizen combined when it comes to what the Constitution actually says.

 

[candycorn]

It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?

Sorry, I only read English. Try again.