Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist

" Directions Of Ethical Realism In Public Awareness "

* Objective Analysis Of Failed Informed Consent Of The Public *


One is able to deduce a common law that is ethically valid from first principles of non violence and individualism , while also acknowledging moral relativism of nature , and presuming that a law exists where an entity is capable of and issues a retort or reprise for violations of some legal construct .

* Traditional Or Contemporary Projections For Establishing Normative Valuation *

One is assured that exegesis and eisegesis will continue to occur .

* Goading Deism Personified As Justification To Dictate Diatribe *

Anything that can be alienated is not inalienable and that is a logical fact ; an unlimited possibility to implement a rites doe not make a rite inalienable .

. Positive law - Wikipedia .
Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. Positive law also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from natural law, which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason".[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]


. Legal positivism - Wikipedia .
In jurisprudence (also known as legal philosophy), legal positivism is the theory that the existence of the law and its content depend on social facts, such as acts of legislation, judicial decisions, and customs, rather than on morality. This contrasts with theories such as natural law, which hold that law is necessarily connected to morality in such a way that any law that contradicts morality lacks legal validity.

Sometimes the term 'positivist' is used in a pejorative sense to condemn a doctrine according to which the law is always clear (legal formalism) and, however unjust, must be strictly enforced by officials and obeyed by subjects (so-called 'ideological positivism').[1][10][11] When identified with legal formalism, legal positivism is opposed to legal realism. Legal positivism, understood as formalism, believes that in most cases the law provides definite guidance to its subjects and to judges; legal realists, on the other hand, often embrace rule scepticism, claiming that legal rules are indeterminate and do not constrain judicial discretion.[13] However, both legal positivism and legal realism believe that law is a human construct. Moreover, most realists adopted some version of the positivist doctrine of the separation of law and morality.[14]


. Morality - Wikipedia .
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[8] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between ethics and morality.

. Ethics - Wikipedia .
Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right. Its main branches include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.

Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics explores the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. Influential normative theories are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. According to consequentialists, an act is
right ( SIC ) if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists focus on acts themselves, saying that they must adhere to duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality.

Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of value, like the contrast between intrinsic and instrumental value. Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as reasoning and the formation of character. Descriptive ethics describes the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers their historical dimension.
"One is able to deduce a common law that is ethically valid from first principles of non violence and individualism , while also acknowledging moral relativism of nature , and presuming that a law exists where an entity is capable of and issues a retort or reprise for violations of some legal construct ."

Of course that is false.


Any study of history refutes it writ large.

Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.
 
Terrified of addressing the topic that’s being discussed?

That’s what I thought.

You’re excused now.
I answered your question correctly and fully.

You slither away when i asked on which would clearly define what you are.

Leave now.
 
I answered your question correctly and fully.
No, you didn’t. Your responses, as I’ve explained to you, pivoted away from what was being discussed to instead discuss me. See for yourself:

I asked this question.

"It appears you vote Democrat/Fascist...am I correct or do I owe you an apology?"


The odor left by your refusal to answer the simple question suggests a certain shame.


let's see if I can continue to be 100% correct......bet you are a government school grad.


How'd I do?
Nothing addressing the topic there. Just you trying to scamper away and then pretending you didn’t.

You’re dismissed now.
 
No, you didn’t. Your responses, as I’ve explained to you, pivoted away from what was being discussed to instead discuss me. See for yourself:


Nothing addressing the topic there. Just you trying to scamper away and then pretending you didn’t.

You’re dismissed now.
I answered correctly and fully in post #51:

What an easy question to answer.
1. The document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.
2. AI Overview
The process for amending the U.S. Constitution is outlined in Article V. This article specifies two ways to propose amendments: a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or a request from two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. It also outlines two methods for ratifying amendments: either by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.
3. If an amendment is passed that allows the 3rd term, it will happen.

This is educational, not a prediction.



So now we know you are a liar, too.
The perfect Democrat resume.




In the words of the Brown Bomber...."you can run, but y ou can't hide."
 
I answered correctly and fully in post #51:
And as the discussion continued in posts 52-54, you then deflected to talking about me instead of addressing what was said.

You scampered away from the topic of the discussion and you’re pretending you didn’t.

You’re dismissed. Run along now, coward.
 
And as the discussion continued in posts 52-54, you then deflected to talking about me instead of addressing what was said.

You scampered away from the topic of the discussion and you’re pretending you didn’t.

You’re dismissed. Run along now, coward.
It is only you Democrats who pass laws that are unconstitutional, such as banning free speech.
 
It is only you Democrats who pass laws that are unconstitutional, such as banning free speech.

This again? What does free speech have to do with this?

Trump and MAGA Republicans have the freedom of speech to say that Trump should have a third term. Nobody is disputing that right that they have to express their beliefs.

However, Trump receiving a 3rd term is in direct violation with what it says in the Constitution. To clarify, Republicans have the freedom of speech to express opinions that go against the Constitution.

Do we agree or not? Try not to deflect this time.
 
This again? What does free speech have to do with this?

Trump and MAGA Republicans have the freedom of speech to say that Trump should have a third term. Nobody is disputing that right that they have to express their beliefs.

However, Trump receiving a 3rd term is in direct violation with what it says in the Constitution. To clarify, Republicans have the freedom of speech to express opinions that go against the Constitution.

Do we agree or not? Try not to deflect this time.
I've explained it to you twice, but I recognize that this is the reason you were left back in school so many time.

I know that the Democrat party has passed law outlawing free speech....the first amendment be damned.

The Constitution allow changes to things like the 22nd amendment, and if the nation deems this man the greatest President in several generatons, they can amend the Constitution.


Only your party ignores the Constitution, as I just pointed out TWICE.


This is where you say "duhhhhhhhhhhhhh."
 
I've explained it to you twice, but I recognize that this is the reason you were left back in school so many time.

I know that the Democrat party has passed law outlawing free speech....the first amendment be damned.

The Constitution allow changes to things like the 22nd amendment, and if the nation deems this man the greatest President in several generatons, they can amend the Constitution.
Did I ever dispute that the Constitution can be amended? LoL.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

So what part of my statement do you disagree with? Do you even know?

Now I know why you chose to deflect. You’re having a really hard time making a coherent point.
 
Did I ever dispute that the Constitution can be amended? LoL.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

So what part of my statement do you disagree with? Do you even know?

Now I know why you chose to deflect. You’re having a really hard time making a coherent point.
You claimed Trump speaking of a 3rd term is unconstitutional.

And, several time, I proved you a liar.
 
You claimed Trump speaking of a 3rd term is unconstitutional.

That’s not what I said at all. Speaking of a 3rd term is perfectly constitutional as it falls under the first amendment. Here is what I said. I suggest you read it this time:

Trump and MAGA Republicans have the freedom of speech to say that Trump should have a third term. Nobody is disputing that right that they have to express their beliefs.

Read that over as many times as you need to. I don’t know how you managed to misinterpret that one.
 
That’s not what I said at all. Speaking of a 3rd term is perfectly constitutional as it falls under the first amendment. Here is what I said. I suggest you read it this time:



Read that over as many times as you need to. I don’t know how you managed to misinterpret that one.
Why do Democrats dishonor the Constitution?
 
Why do Democrats dishonor the Constitution?
And now you’re deflecting again.

When you get proven wrong, you try to deflect to your mindless talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re excused now.
 
And now you’re deflecting again.

When you get proven wrong, you try to deflect to your mindless talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re excused now.
I'm never wrong.

Now....Why do Democrats dishonor the Constitution?

Is it because they're not really Americans?


Is that why you hate a truly American President?
 
I'm never wrong.

That’s a lie. You were wrong in this exchange:

You claimed Trump speaking of a 3rd term is unconstitutional.
That’s not what I said at all. Speaking of a 3rd term is perfectly constitutional as it falls under the first amendment. Here is what I said. I suggest you read it this time:
Trump and MAGA Republicans have the freedom of speech to say that Trump should have a third term. Nobody is disputing that right that they have to express their beliefs.

Rather than addressing what was said here in this discussion, you run off to deflect to some other pre-rehearsed talking point that has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

You cowards are so predictable. Watch, you’re going to do it again. Go ahead. Prove me right.
 
That’s a lie. You were wrong in this exchange:





Rather than addressing what was said here in this discussion, you run off to deflect to some other pre-rehearsed talking point that has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

You cowards are so predictable. Watch, you’re going to do it again. Go ahead. Prove me right.
You'd have to be quite the dunce to bring up Trump's suggestion of a third term as being unconstituional....as though you were opposed to 'unconstitutional,' yet you vote for a party that despises the Constitution.....


.....don't you agree?
 
You'd have to be quite the dunce to bring up Trump's suggestion of a third term as being unconstituional....as though you were opposed to 'unconstitutional,' yet you vote for a party that despises the Constitution.....


.....don't you agree?
Once again, bringing up something is Constitutional because it falls under the protection of the First Amendment.

What part of this are you failing to understand? I've explained it to you at least 3 times now.
 
Once again, bringing up something is Constitutional because it falls under the protection of the First Amendment.

What part of this are you failing to understand? I've explained it to you at least 3 times now.
Will you ever again suggest that Trump suggesting a 3rd term is unconstitutional, or have I taught you a lesson?
 
Will you ever again suggest that Trump suggesting a 3rd term is unconstitutional, or have I taught you a lesson?

I never argued that suggesting something is unconstitutional. This has been explicitly spelled out for you multiple times and you're still confused.

Do you have a coherent argument to make or do you need me to correct your repeated mistakes some more? I'm happy to help however I can.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom