So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?
It really does say Militia. True story bro.
The first amendment says religion to, so I guess if you're an atheist you can shut the fuck up, you don't have a right after all.
That is a great question Candy (seriously).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.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!
“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)
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.
I always like to ask people this:
What parts of the Constitution, as we have the benefit of 230+ years worth of hindsight, did the framers get wrong?
That is a great question Candy (seriously).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.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!
“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)
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.
I always like to ask people this:
What parts of the Constitution, as we have the benefit of 230+ years worth of hindsight, did the framers get wrong?
Having the luxury of 240 years of hindsight (and examining this document literally hundreds and hundreds of time - committed to reading it daily as much as possible), I can say that they literally got nothing wrong.
There is GREAT confusion regarding Executive Orders (EO) and Executive actions. Actually, the President ordering the flag to fly at half-mast is an Executive action and NOT an Executive Order at all. The confusion stems from the far right faction trying to smear Obama FOR YEARS with their special style of propaganda to project Obama as a dictatorial, power hungry SOB violating the Constitution promoting tyranny and grabbing power.
Well....you're half right (which is a HUGE step for you). Executive Orders are designed and legally binding only towards members of the executive branch (i.e. people who work for Obama).
Cite them by Name and Number. To make it easy for you, here again are the Executive Order Disposition Tables. Back up your bullshit or go pound sand, shit for brains! Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
You can't read AND understand can you! The first paragraph of the piece you cite puts you in a clown suit, fool, and states;
Executive memoranda (EM) are used to direct those agencies within the Executive Branch and are Executive actions you blithering idiot! EM's are the instrument used to inform Executive Branch. The President is EMPOWERED by the US Constitution in Article II to do just that you simpering fool!
Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.
But what a shame. Liberals don't understand that every time they pretend like words don't have any meaning to usurp the Constitutional rights of someone else, they set a precedence to have their own Constitutional rights usurped with that same tactic.
If Obama instructed DHS to do something illegal as you CLAIM, cite the statute's Title, Chapter and Section from the Code along with the documentation proving he violated that statute by making an unlawful order! You will never do that you bloody phony! You're all hot air and know NOTHING of value. You simply parrot propaganda.Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.
I'm guessing you have no reading comprehension because you're so angry about looking like a fool in front of everyone? Like how you were crowing about the "limited" use of Executive Orders by Obama while being completely unaware of the Presidential Memorandum's that he had issued which do the exact same thing as the EO's. How embarrassing for you.
By the chief - trying to say that Obama's over 200 "Executive Orders" isn't that much by simply citing the three presidents that used them the most is as stupid as saying that you "only" raped and murdered 4 women and that's not very much compared to Ted Bundy. You want a real comparison? George Washington issued 1 Executive Order in his 8 years as President. One.
Now scream a bunch of profanities and make a fool of yourself again....
You haven't proven jack shit! All you've provided is your uninformed opinion and that is not proof of anything but your "opinions"! Here is additional proof that your are wrong in your misguided belief that if something is not written precisely within the Constitution then it is unconstitutional, which is bullshit ignorance on your part.I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).
And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.
The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.
As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".
Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".
Above in the bold/RED sentence is your argument that everything must be delineated in detail within the Constitution being destroyed by one of the Founders who wrote this in 1787. Unlike Jefferson whose 1820 quotation was your single citation during our exchange, Hamilton was actually in the Hall directly taking part in the construction of the Constitution and was therefore able to relate the Founders intent as Publius in the Papers.
Dude.....it's one thing that you were completely ignorant of the fact that Obama was issuing "Presidential Memorandums" (as you proved above). But it's a very special kind of stupid to pretend like you are unaware of Obama's directive to stop anyone from deporting illegal aliens. I mean - the dude held a press conference that was held by every network live. And then it was covered by every network for weeks. Are you really going to pretend like you're not ware of that?If Obama instructed DHS to do something illegal as you CLAIM, cite the statute's Title, Chapter and Section from the Code along with the documentation proving he violated that statute by making an unlawful order! You will never do that you bloody phony! You're all hot air and know NOTHING of value. You simply parrot propaganda.Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.
I'm guessing you have no reading comprehension because you're so angry about looking like a fool in front of everyone? Like how you were crowing about the "limited" use of Executive Orders by Obama while being completely unaware of the Presidential Memorandum's that he had issued which do the exact same thing as the EO's. How embarrassing for you.
By the chief - trying to say that Obama's over 200 "Executive Orders" isn't that much by simply citing the three presidents that used them the most is as stupid as saying that you "only" raped and murdered 4 women and that's not very much compared to Ted Bundy. You want a real comparison? George Washington issued 1 Executive Order in his 8 years as President. One.
Now scream a bunch of profanities and make a fool of yourself again....
The point I made, to which you responded, had to do with the distinction between Executive actions with Executive memoranda being the instrument of relaying instruction AND Executive Orders, which have the force of law. Instead of staying on topic, you move the goal posts with a strawman instead without any foundation to support your baseless declarations, and not address what is actually on the table.
So if you can't back up you claims with anything but your OPINIONS you definitely are simply tap dancing to cover your ignorance.
Cite your proof, fool, or yield! Waiting...
You haven't proven jack shit! All you've provided is your uninformed opinion and that is not proof of anything but your "opinions"! Here is additional proof that your are wrong in your misguided belief that if something is not written precisely within the Constitution then it is unconstitutional, which is bullshit ignorance on your part.I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).
And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.
The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.
As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".
Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".
Above in the bold/RED sentence is your argument that everything must be delineated in detail within the Constitution being destroyed by one of the Founders who wrote this in 1787. Unlike Jefferson whose 1820 quotation was your single citation during our exchange, Hamilton was actually in the Hall directly taking part in the construction of the Constitution and was therefore able to relate the Founders intent as Publius in the Papers.
The sentence above in BOLD BLUE goes directly to the debunking of your inane assertion. Hamilton made crystal clear that judges, including SCOTUS, were empowered to INTERPERT LAW, that the Constitution was LAW, and therefore, Judges were empowered to interpret the Constitution. Q.E.D.
That was the intent of the Founders from the pen of one of the Founders. That is the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. You are wrong and have been wrong. You have been informed of your error. However, I doubt that the facts will not get through that block of granite on your shoulders, you bloody fool!
