The special insanity of it all

[candycorn]

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".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

It's cut and dry Candy. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean you get to change. It clearly says the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militias. The framers were giving a WHY as to the necessity (i.e. why it was necessary). But that is not the WHAT. The what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, there is simply no denying that. You're being very disingenuous and you know it.

As far as the rest, again, I largely agree with you. But if you look in this millennium, who was the one who really started the obstructionism? Harry Reid. As Senate Majority Leader, he started blocking voting on bills even though he had the majority (obviously, as Senate leader) whenever there was indication that some Democrats might "cross over" on legislation. Which is really the worst form of tyranny. If other Democrats were willing to cross over, then most likely the legislation was something really good. But Harry Reid, being a radicalized ideologue and an authoritarian, refused to even allow voting on it.

The bottom line is, the further we have moved away from the U.S. Constitution, the more we have seen this country fail. We need to return to a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. And anyone who feels that the document no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, needs to have an honest conversation about that and then convince people to get the votes needed to legally amend the Constitution. If one can't get the votes they need, then they need to accept that it is the will of the American people.

Bravo! Your analysis of the Second Amendment is spot on. You apparently have experience in interpreting legal documents and know the difference between a PREFATORY clause (which says why) and an OPERATIVE Clause (which says what). The important thing is that the United States Supreme Court agrees with you. In the case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008) the SCOTUS ruled that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

For now.

Can’t wait until Hillary remakes the court in her own image between now and 2024.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're lying claiming you didn't say anything about Hamilton. You've mentioned him at least three (3) times now.

Um...you keep mentioning Hamilton junior

So since you won't answer the question (cause you're peeing down your leg like a frightened child ) can you tell us why you are so afraid? I've never seen anyone this freaked out to give a simple yes or no answer. I mean, hell, you've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right. We know you have no clue about the Constitution but even you have decent odds at 50/50.

Yup, I keep mentioning Hamilton to remind you of what he wrote in Federalist #78, which you want to ignore. You're the one taunting and obsessing over that question I have answered repeatedly about 5 times now. You're just too fucking stupid to understand the written word and conclude the impact of that passage on your dimwitted assertions, OR more likely, you know that the totality of it blows your claim completely out of the water, so you choose to try and trivialize what I CITED AS PROOF. I've told you to get someone to help you, fool! Damn, you're really dumber than a box of rocks on an old growth stump, HUH!

BTW, you STILL haven't answered this question I'll repeat a third time, which you will just ignore with a flip response if any at all ONE MORE TIME...clue: it's not rhetorical;

Why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!

You're claiming you answered it - but you haven't. You keep quoting Hamilton. Should the entire board then assume that you agree with Hamilton? That the U.S. Constitution is law?

Well CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You finally caught on and figured it out after being pointed that way about six (6) times. Who helped you figure it out?

If the framers of the Constitution, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch say AND recognize the Constitution as LAW then who am I to contradict them, but especially the Framers who constructed the Document. Who would know best what THEIR INTENT WAS?

That is PRECISELY why I quoted that passage so many times, and here it is again for your examination and further enlightnment;

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~

That passage says far, far more that the Constitution is fundamental law. I'll parse it for your further edification.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution.

That sentence clearly states that the legislatures are not the final arbiters/judges of a law they may create, and attempt to usurp the powers of the other branches (think separation of powers and checks and balances here) UNLESS it is a power of the legislature within the Constitution. Got it? Good...moving on!

It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

The first sentence here makes a clear declaration the Legislative Branch is restrained by the Constitution from acting for their themselves without representing the lawful will and rights of their constituency. The follow on sentence states that the Courts are, INDEED, the final arbiters of the LAW. (Here again think separation of powers and checks and balances as well as Judicial Review.)

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

The first sentence is the beginning of the conclusion of the paragraph's point. You seem to have ignored its import all those times I've posted it to you either out of ignorance or intent, which I believe the latter is the case. The Courts INTERPRET the LAWS, not the other two Branches. The Courts alone have that power. (Here think Judicial Review.)

It therefore belongs to them [the Courts, sic] to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Following the analysis above, these two sentences should be self explanatory. The Courts are responsible for ascertaining the meaning/INTENT of BOTH A STATUTE AND THE CONSTITUTION.

So to directly answer your question after leading you to this point, yes the, "...Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law." ~~ A. Hamilton, Federalist #78

I knew where you were headed and why you were so very anxious to get me to say the Constitution was law. If I hadn't got you to admit you had read it, you would have connived to wiggle out of the admission you had read it like a damn coward!

No doubt after you had gotten me to say the Constitution was law, you would have presented Amendment II as a portion of the Constitution and therefore LAW and inviolate, ignoring the way you do that that Amendment could and has, indeed, been reviewed by SCOTUS and found to be not INVIOLATE! Then you would likely play your Amendment X card on top of it and claimed the National Government had no authority to pass any legislation regarding gun control. You are so very transparent!

Now you know the intent of the Framers regarding the necessity of Judicial Review. You also see that A. Hamilton as Publius informed the public of the proper role of the Courts within the framework of the Constitution in Federalist #78 in 1787 prior to the Constitution's ratification. You further know that SCOTUS in many of their decisions cite passages from the Federalist Papers to indicate the Framers' INTENT upon which to base their decisions.

The forgoing proves beyond any doubt that Amendment II is reviewable by SCOTUS, Amendment II can be interpreted, Amendment II HAS been interpreted, gun control statutes have been passed based on those decisions regarding Amendment II, Judicial Review was a design of the Framers intended to INTERPRET the LAW and the CONSTITUTION and that Judicial Review has been employed to review gun controls statutes with some portions being found Constitutional and some portions of others unconstitutional.

Now who are you to contradict the Framers intent. What bloody hubris to claim you know better than those involved in the Constitution's construction? Your self-proclaimed superior knowledge of the Constitution simply falls apart in a slight breeze Rot.

 

[P@triot]

A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.

Boom! Knockout blow baby...

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

It's funny - not one founder uses the term "militia". They all say "the people". As in the entire populace. It's ok Candy. The good news is we all know you know - so it's not that you're ignorant. The bad news is that you're intentionally being disingenuous - which is the nice way of saying a dirt-bag liar. The worse news is that ignorant is more acceptable than someone who lacks integrity to the point that they can lie.

The framers (founders are other people dumb dumb) put the word “militia” into the 2nd Amendment. So at least one of them used it. Sorry.

The framers were the founders dumb dumb (you think our founders outsourced the constructing of the Constitution).

Considering you cleary don't even know who was in the room (such as George Washington who was one of our founders), it's hard to take anything you say about the Constitution seriously.

Oh...and the founders did not use the term "militia". Not even one of them. Because the document said and still does to this day "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". One has to wonder why you are trying to infringe? Because you were trained to have a fear of firearms and you're unable to escape your programming and think for yourself?

 

[P@triot]

Well CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You finally caught on and figured it out after being pointed that way about six (6) times. Who helped you figure it out?

If the framers of the Constitution, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch say AND recognize the Constitution as LAW then who am I to contradict them, but especially the Framers who constructed the Document. Who would know best what THEIR INTENT WAS?

That is PRECISELY why I quoted that passage so many times, and here it is again for your examination and further enlightnment

Well, you see, conservatives don't assume junior. We deal in facts while you deal in propaganda and ideology. It's ironic that you want to talk about law and then refuse to clearly answer the question. You do realize that your answer would not have been acceptable in a court of law because the attorneys, judges, and jurors aren't permitted to assume anything. And you would have been held in contempt of court for refusing to give a simple yes or no answer (after all, nobody asked you to cite Alexander Hamilton's opinion - we asked for yours).

Now the bad news: no matter how you answered that question, it unequivocally proves you are wrong.

You see - a law is not open for interpretation. If it was, the population could not comply with it and thus not be held accountable to it. For example, if a 25mph speed limit were "open to interpretation" then one citizen might consider that to mean going 40mph is ok while another might consider that to mean going 24mph. And idiot liberals would never make the case that the speed limit is "open to interpretation". The same thing with any other law. Are you permitted to "interpret" laws against rape? Can I decide it's ok to rape a woman depending on how I "interpret" a situation. Of course not - and even a liberal idiot ideologue like you knows it.

So now that we all know and cannot deny that a law "open to interpretation" is a law which the people could not possibly obey, we know that the U.S. Constitution cannot be "open to interpretation" as not only is it the law, but the Supremacy Clause (you'll learn about this sometime junior if you don't drop out of school) establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land. If lower laws are not "open to interpretation" then certainly the highest law in the land is not "open to interpretation" (especially considering we already established that a law cannot possibly be obeyed if everyone interprets what it means differently).

Boom!!!! Like a boss. Game over junior. You lose.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You finally caught on and figured it out after being pointed that way about six (6) times. Who helped you figure it out?

If the framers of the Constitution, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch say AND recognize the Constitution as LAW then who am I to contradict them, but especially the Framers who constructed the Document. Who would know best what THEIR INTENT WAS?

That is PRECISELY why I quoted that passage so many times, and here it is again for your examination and further enlightnment

Well, you see, conservatives don't assume junior. We deal in facts while you deal in propaganda and ideology. It's ironic that you want to talk about law and then refuse to clearly answer the question. You do realize that your answer would not have been acceptable in a court of law because the attorneys, judges, and jurors aren't permitted to assume anything. And you would have been held in contempt of court for refusing to give a simple yes or no answer (after all, nobody asked you to cite Alexander Hamilton's opinion - we asked for yours).

Now the bad news: no matter how you answered that question, it unequivocally proves you are wrong.

You see - a law is not open for interpretation. If it was, the population could not comply with it and thus not be held accountable to it. For example, if a 25mph speed limit were "open to interpretation" then one citizen might consider that to mean going 40mph is ok while another might consider that to mean going 24mph. And idiot liberals would never make the case that the speed limit is "open to interpretation". The same thing with any other law. Are you permitted to "interpret" laws against rape? Can I decide it's ok to rape a woman depending on how I "interpret" a situation. Of course not - and even a liberal idiot ideologue like you knows it.

So now that we all know and cannot deny that a law "open to interpretation" is a law which the people could not possibly obey, we know that the U.S. Constitution cannot be "open to interpretation" as not only is it the law, but the Supremacy Clause (you'll learn about this sometime junior if you don't drop out of school) establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land. If lower laws are not "open to interpretation" then certainly the highest law in the land is not "open to interpretation" (especially considering we already established that a law cannot possibly be obeyed if everyone interprets what it means differently).

Boom!!!! Like a boss. Game over junior. You lose.

Damn you are DUMB! Citizens do not have any authority to officially interpret statutes, IDIOT, and you know that I never came close to implying that. ONLY THE COURTS are permitted to conduct Judicial Review as I stated multiple times in my last post. You're flat WRONG and you're dancing a fools jitter bug.

Judicial Review is a fact and a power of only the Courts authorized by the Constitution as proven through intent and by precedent. Even an IDIOT could have taken that away from my last post based on the facts presented and reviewed from Federalist #78, so your are just dissembling, moving the goal posts and playing stupid so you don't have to respond to my post.

I knew you were going to pull this kind of crap being the dishonest son of a bitch you are. Dance away and project your infantile conduct dummy! You still haven't AND can't provide ANY authoritative source backing your claims and assertions, you simply talk bullshit fantasies. You claim you deal in facts. Where are the facts to support your cockeyed opinions! YOU DON"T HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIATION TO BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS! You must be really pissed off for me to have sniffed out your silly little childish semantic "trap".

I didn't lose anything, I'm very, very sure of what I posted. However, I'm sure also that if other reasonable folks have been following this they have downgraded you character somewhat. What a waste of air!

 

[Clementine]

Both sides of the aisle are creating legislation whose sole purpose is to enforce existing legislation. You get that? We already have a law...but we don't enforce it for some reason. And rather than just enforcing the law, we create new laws which say "hey...you must enforce that previous law". Uh....ok??? And who is going to enforce this new law which forces people to enforce the previous law?

Here is the right side of the aisle engaging in this insanity. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already protects my religious freedoms. But liberals don't care. Well...if they don't care about the freaking Constitution - the highest law in the land - why the frick would they care about or respect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)? How about instead of wasting time and resources on creating new legislation, you spend time and resources focusing on how to achieve getting America to adhere to existing legislation?!?

Last year the Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage all 50 states. Since that time, faith-based charities, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Court’s redefinition have been attacked for standing up for their religious convictions.

How do we protect these organizations? The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is legislation that does two major things:

• FADA protects religious organizations and charities from choosing between giving up their tax exempt status and compromising on their beliefs (specifically the belief that marriage is between one woman and one man).
• FADA protects religious institutions, like universities from losing their accreditation and from being pushed out of the public sphere.

It is crazy that laws need to be directed at authorities who choose not to follow existing laws. They pick and choose which laws they want to obey.

Immigration laws are completely ignored. Don't try that with Obamacare since we get reminded all the time that it's a law. Don't try it with tax laws or you'll be in big trouble (unless you are Al Sharpton). Don't disobey any laws as a citizen or you will be visited by authorities.

Illegal aliens get away with a lot. They don't follow immigration laws. They regularly steal people's identities and get away with it. They get welfare, Obamacare, tax refunds (when they pay nothing in), and they collect disability (like Obama's aunt) and Social Security.

Congress can engage in insider trading all they want. We would go directly to jail if we did half the stuff that people in Washington do every day.

So, of course, some think they have to make laws to force authorities to follow current laws. And when they still don't follow them, there won't be any consequences.

We need a law that states all of congress and the president have to obey each and every law they impose on us with no exceptions.

And laws should be enforced or changed. No exceptions.

 

[P@triot]

Well CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You finally caught on and figured it out after being pointed that way about six (6) times. Who helped you figure it out?

If the framers of the Constitution, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch say AND recognize the Constitution as LAW then who am I to contradict them, but especially the Framers who constructed the Document. Who would know best what THEIR INTENT WAS?

That is PRECISELY why I quoted that passage so many times, and here it is again for your examination and further enlightnment

Well, you see, conservatives don't assume junior. We deal in facts while you deal in propaganda and ideology. It's ironic that you want to talk about law and then refuse to clearly answer the question. You do realize that your answer would not have been acceptable in a court of law because the attorneys, judges, and jurors aren't permitted to assume anything. And you would have been held in contempt of court for refusing to give a simple yes or no answer (after all, nobody asked you to cite Alexander Hamilton's opinion - we asked for yours).

Now the bad news: no matter how you answered that question, it unequivocally proves you are wrong.

You see - a law is not open for interpretation. If it was, the population could not comply with it and thus not be held accountable to it. For example, if a 25mph speed limit were "open to interpretation" then one citizen might consider that to mean going 40mph is ok while another might consider that to mean going 24mph. And idiot liberals would never make the case that the speed limit is "open to interpretation". The same thing with any other law. Are you permitted to "interpret" laws against rape? Can I decide it's ok to rape a woman depending on how I "interpret" a situation. Of course not - and even a liberal idiot ideologue like you knows it.

So now that we all know and cannot deny that a law "open to interpretation" is a law which the people could not possibly obey, we know that the U.S. Constitution cannot be "open to interpretation" as not only is it the law, but the Supremacy Clause (you'll learn about this sometime junior if you don't drop out of school) establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land. If lower laws are not "open to interpretation" then certainly the highest law in the land is not "open to interpretation" (especially considering we already established that a law cannot possibly be obeyed if everyone interprets what it means differently).

Boom!!!! Like a boss. Game over junior. You lose.

Damn you are DUMB! Citizens do not have any authority to officially interpret statutes, IDIOT, and you know that I never came close to implying that. ONLY THE COURTS are permitted to conduct Judicial Review as I stated multiple times in my last post. You're flat WRONG and you're dancing a fools jitter bug.

Judicial Review is a fact and a power of only the Courts authorized by the Constitution as proven through intent and by precedent. Even an IDIOT could have taken that away from my last post based on the facts presented and reviewed from Federalist #78, so your are just dissembling, moving the goal posts and playing stupid so you don't have to respond to my post.

I knew you were going to pull this kind of crap being the dishonest son of a bitch you are. Dance away and project your infantile conduct dummy! You still haven't AND can't provide ANY authoritative source backing your claims and assertions, you simply talk bullshit fantasies. You claim you deal in facts. Where are the facts to support your cockeyed opinions! YOU DON"T HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIATION TO BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS! You must be really pissed off for me to have sniffed out your silly little childish semantic "trap".

I didn't lose anything, I'm very, very sure of what I posted. However, I'm sure also that if other reasonable folks have been following this they have downgraded you character somewhat. What a waste of air!

Pfff! You want to talk about "implying"?!?! I never said (or implied) that you said the people have the authority to interpret anything. You're reading comprehension is by far the worst I've ever seen.

You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts. How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible. If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.

A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go. And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).

Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.

Now type in all caps again, resort to foul language, and display to everyone you immaturity in dealing with being wrong.

 

[candycorn]

A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.

Boom! Knockout blow baby...

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

It's funny - not one founder uses the term "militia". They all say "the people". As in the entire populace. It's ok Candy. The good news is we all know you know - so it's not that you're ignorant. The bad news is that you're intentionally being disingenuous - which is the nice way of saying a dirt-bag liar. The worse news is that ignorant is more acceptable than someone who lacks integrity to the point that they can lie.

The framers (founders are other people dumb dumb) put the word “militia” into the 2nd Amendment. So at least one of them used it. Sorry.

The framers were the founders dumb dumb (you think our founders outsourced the constructing of the Constitution).

Considering you cleary don't even know who was in the room (such as George Washington who was one of our founders), it's hard to take anything you say about the Constitution seriously.

Oh...and the founders did not use the term "militia". Not even one of them. Because the document said and still does to this day "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". One has to wonder why you are trying to infringe? Because you were trained to have a fear of firearms and you're unable to escape your programming and think for yourself?

Nation founded in 1776.
Constitutional Convention 1787.

Not the same event. Jesus you’re ignorant.

“Militia” appeared in the constitution. You say none of the framers used the word. Impossible. But then again, I deal in logic and truth. Whatever you’re smoking prevents you from doing the same.

 

[P@triot]

Nation founded in 1776.
Constitutional Convention 1787.

Not the same event. Jesus you’re ignorant.

“Militia” appeared in the constitution. You say none of the framers used the word. Impossible. But then again, I deal in logic and truth. Whatever you’re smoking prevents you from doing the same.

You just called Jesus ignorant. Wow. Oh wait....I forgot that not only are you ignorant, but that you get really angry when you lose an argument (and man have you lost this one in a huge way).

For starters my dear, if you were trying to call me ignorant instead of Jesus ignorant, then the correct structure would have been: "Jesus, you're ignorant". That little comma makes all the difference. Of course, since you don't understand that much it's no wonder you are completely baffled and confused by the U.S. Constitution.

Second, let's discuss your fall-down hilarious "founders vs. framers" thing. The people who founded this country (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc.) were the same people who sat in that room in Philadelphia and penned the document, stupid. If you weren't around in 1776 to found the country then you most certainly were not at the Constitutional Convention a mere 11 years later sweetie. Because no child helped pen the document dummy. If you weren't born in 1776, you weren't signing the Constitution in 1787.

Finally, militia appeared in the Constitution as a reason or why the 2nd Amendment was necessary. It is not, however, what the 2nd Amendment is. As pointed out by "Professor" already, it is the difference between the predatory clause and the operative clause (I realize those are big words for you sweetie - ask an adult for help). The what is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right is very clear right there - it says the right belongs to the people. It doesn't say the right belongs to the milita. And the funny thing is, you know it too, but you're hoping you can convince people in joining you to flat out lie about the Constitution simply because you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object (which, incidentally, begs the question- why don't you seek professional treatment for you mental illness rather than trying to break the law and impede on the rights of others?). And let's not forget how I've provided quotes from all of the founders (the people who also penned the document dummy) and included the exact dates, names, etc. - all of which made it abundantly clear that every citizen had an unfettered right to arms (not muskets, not handguns, arms). You cannot find one original writing from a founder who use the word "militia" or who says there is a restriction on our right to keep and bear arms.

While all you can do is give your disingenuous opinion, I have anihilated you with facts. This is the most comprehensive beat down in debate history my dear. And you know it too - which is why you are getting angrier and angrier with each post and resorting to personal attacks (to avoid the quotes from the founders which you can't dispute and thus can't address).

 

[candycorn]

Nation founded in 1776.
Constitutional Convention 1787.

Not the same event. Jesus you’re ignorant.

“Militia” appeared in the constitution. You say none of the framers used the word. Impossible. But then again, I deal in logic and truth. Whatever you’re smoking prevents you from doing the same.

You just called Jesus ignorant. Wow. Oh wait....I forgot that not only are you ignorant, but that you get really angry when you lose an argument (and man have you lost this one in a huge way).

For starters my dear, if you were trying to call me ignorant instead of Jesus ignorant, then the correct structure would have been: "Jesus, you're ignorant". That little comma makes all the difference. Of course, since you don't understand that much it's no wonder you are completely baffled and confused by the U.S. Constitution.

Second, let's discuss your fall-down hilarious "founders vs. framers" thing. The people who founded this country (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc.) were the same people who sat in that room in Philadelphia and penned the document, stupid. If you weren't around in 1776 to found the country then you most certainly were not at the Constitutional Convention a mere 11 years later sweetie. Because no child helped pen the document dummy. If you weren't born in 1776, you weren't signing the Constitution in 1787.

Finally, militia appeared in the Constitution as a reason or why the 2nd Amendment was necessary. It is not, however, what the 2nd Amendment is. As pointed out by "Professor" already, it is the difference between the predatory clause and the operative clause (I realize those are big words for you sweetie - ask an adult for help). The what is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right is very clear right there - it says the right belongs to the people. It doesn't say the right belongs to the milita. And the funny thing is, you know it too, but you're hoping you can convince people in joining you to flat out lie about the Constitution simply because you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object (which, incidentally, begs the question- why don't you seek professional treatment for you mental illness rather than trying to break the law and impede on the rights of others?). And let's not forget how I've provided quotes from all of the founders (the people who also penned the document dummy) and included the exact dates, names, etc. - all of which made it abundantly clear that every citizen had an unfettered right to arms (not muskets, not handguns, arms). You cannot find one original writing from a founder who use the word "militia" or who says there is a restriction on our right to keep and bear arms.

While all you can do is give your disingenuous opinion, I have anihilated you with facts. This is the most comprehensive beat down in debate history my dear. And you know it too - which is why you are getting angrier and angrier with each post and resorting to personal attacks (to avoid the quotes from the founders which you can't dispute and thus can't address).

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.
The only thing prolific about your beating is that you have to do it every night with your right hand from what I hear.

 

[P@triot]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

(P.S. you are completely and totally bent over and my personal bitch on this one my dear. I'm assuming you are really enjoying having my cock buried in your ass because you keep coming back and asking for more. I'm not going to lie to you - it feels really good on this side!)

 

[P@triot]

The words "Congress shall make no law" appears in the Constitution. They mean something.

Congress is strictly forbidden from creating legislation. I'm not sure who is going to do it now. But it's pretty clear that Conrgess can't.

Liberal "logic" at its finest.

 

[P@triot]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Can’t wait until Hillary remakes the court in her own image between now and 2024.

Amazing. The founders even made it possible to alter the Constitution through an amendment process. So why don't you simply work with you liberal pals to amend the Constitution to limit 2nd Amendment rights to militias if that's what you desire? Why do you need Hillary Clinton to usurp not only Congress but also the U.S. Constitution through executive fiat?

Oh...that's right. You can't accept the fact that the American people don't agree with you. And being a liberal (i.e. an authoritarian little Hilter) you want to go against the will of the American people and impose your will over the majority.

 

[candycorn]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

(P.S. you are completely and totally bent over and my personal bitch on this one my dear. I'm assuming you are really enjoying having my cock buried in your ass because you keep coming back and asking for more. I'm not going to lie to you - it feels really good on this side!)

Now you’re just being an idiot. The 2nd Amendment says what it says. Your argument to the contrary is cute but totally dismissed. The Roberts court seems to want to fix some of the problems that ail society (even though its not their job to do so). When HRC appoints a few more justices, they’ll have the leverage to do just that.


As for your alleged cock, if you lend me an electron microscope and a flashlight perhaps I can have one of the phlebotomists; likely George, look for it.

​

 

[candycorn]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Can’t wait until Hillary remakes the court in her own image between now and 2024.

Amazing. The founders even made it possible to alter the Constitution through an amendment process. So why don't you simply work with you liberal pals to amend the Constitution to limit 2nd Amendment rights to militias if that's what you desire? Why do you need Hillary Clinton to usurp not only Congress but also the U.S. Constitution through executive fiat?

Oh...that's right. You can't accept the fact that the American people don't agree with you. And being a liberal (i.e. an authoritarian little Hilter) you want to go against the will of the American people and impose your will over the majority.

The majority of Americans disagreed with Brown and Roe. What is popular isn’t always right, what is right isn’t always popular. Knowing I’m right is solace enough for me. That HRC will appoint justices after she wins is her duty. Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

 

[P@triot]

The majority of Americans disagreed with Brown and Roe. What is popular isn’t always right, what is right isn’t always popular. Knowing I’m right is solace enough for me. That HRC will appoint justices after she wins is her duty.

Liberalism summed up nicely. Arrogance. "I know better than the masses and thus I'll shove it down their throat".

Even if that were true (and it's not), American wasn't designed for the oligarchy you so desperately want. The people get to decide the direction of the country (so long as it is Constitutional of course). The fact that that bothers you so much says it all. You have such an inferiority complex (much like Saddam Hussein). You have a need to compensate for that by trying to accumulate power over others instead of just allowing them to live in freedom.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

Project much? You're the only one who doesn't like the Constitution. I love it and defend it. You hate it and try to usurp it. The fact that you admit you need Hillary to illegal create law through executive fiat instead of amending the Constitution says it all.

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[candycorn]

Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

Project much? You're the only one who doesn't like the Constitution. I love it and defend it. You hate it and try to usurp it. The fact that you admit you need Hillary to illegal create law through executive fiat instead of amending the Constitution says it all.

Never said anything close to that. Just that Roberts (A Bush appointee) seems to want to apply the court into problem solving.

 

[candycorn]

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.