Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."

And I wiped up the floor with you.

The November election wasn't enough a lesson, so I had to administer another lesson.


This falls under the same rubric as your party banning free speech.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."
And I wiped up the floor with you.

The November election wasn't enough a lesson, so I had to administer another lesson.


This falls under the same rubric as your party banning free speech.

You're not very bright. I've clarified this for you multiple times and you're still confused. Let's try again. I'll put my response in little bite-sized bullet points so that your limited mind can process what is being said. Take your time here.

• It is unconstitutional for Trump to serve a 3rd term.
• Receiving a 3rd term is what is unconstitutional.
• Trump is allowed to say he wants to serve a 3rd term.
• Saying he wants to serve a 3rd term is protected by the 1st amendment.

Do you understand now? Probably not. Here, let's try an example for you.

If I say "You shouldn't be allowed to say mean things to me", then I am pushing for something that is unconstitutional - taking your freedom of speech away. However, because of the freedom of speech, I am within my right to express this opinion.

In essence, you're allowed to voice your opinion for something that is unconstitutional. Get it now? Probably not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not very bright. I've clarified this for you multiple times and you're still confused. Let's try again. I'll put my response in little bite-sized bullet points so that your limited mind can process what is being said. Take your time here.

• It is unconstitutional for Trump to serve a 3rd term.
• Receiving a 3rd term is what is unconstitutional.
• Trump is allowed to say he wants to serve a 3rd term.
• Saying he wants to serve a 3rd term is protected by the 1st amendment.

Do you understand now? Probably not. Here, let's try an example for you.

If I say "You shouldn't be allowed to say mean things to me", then I am pushing for something that is unconstitutional - taking your freedom of speech away. However, because of the freedom of speech, I am within my right to express this opinion.

In essence, you're allowed to voice your opinion for something that is unconstitutional. Get it now? Probably not.

This is the third time I have labeled you and you simply dodged the question.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."



So.....If I'm not very bright, but I wiped up the floor with you, where does that leave you?

 

[XponentialChaos]

This is the third time I have labeled you and you simply dodged the question.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."



So.....If I'm not very bright, but I wiped up the floor with you, where does that leave you?

You’re not very bright. I had to explain the same thing to you multiple times and I still don’t think you understand. Are you still confused?

Your stubborn misconceptions are the reason why you think you wiped the floor with anyone. You haven’t.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You’re not very bright. I had to explain the same thing to you multiple times and I still don’t think you understand. Are you still confused?

Your stubborn misconceptions are the reason why you think you wiped the floor with anyone. You haven’t.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."

You were lying, weren't you.....and I had to take you to the woodshed.

I hope you learned your lesson so I don't have to do it again.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."

You were lying, weren't you.....and I had to take you to the woodshed.

I hope you learned your lesson so I don't have to do it again.

What he's pushing for is unconstitutional. However, he's constitutionally allowed to say he wants something that is unconstitutional.

Cleared up again for you. But it doesn't matter because you're too stupid to understand this the first 20 times I explained it for you. You really are stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What he's pushing for is unconstitutional. However, he's constitutionally allowed to say he wants something that is unconstitutional.

Cleared up again for you. But it doesn't matter because you're too stupid to understand this the first 20 times I explained it for you. You really are stupid.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."


"pushing".....as in speaking about?

You Fascists have this thing about people saying things you don't agree with, don't you.


Should I say 'good-bye," or would you rather your more traditional "Sieg Heil"?

 

[XponentialChaos]

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."


"pushing".....as in speaking about?

You Fascists have this thing about people saying things you don't agree with, don't you.


Should I say 'good-bye," or would you rather your more traditional "Sieg Heil"?

This has been explained to you multiple times. Are you still confused?

Take your time. Let me know when you figure it out, you dumb bimbo.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Relativism Of Perspective For Event Outcomes "

* Logical Fallacy Of Appeal To Authority *

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.

When a tiger kills and eats a hue mammon ape , is that evil ?

A law exists because there is an entity capable of and issuing a retort for violations of some legal pretext .

Suppose a conjecture for a law against murder and the consequence is death , then when a killing occurs that is murder , an immediate consequence of death would be expected , but that does not occur so therefore there is not a law of nature or a law of goad against killing which would qualify as murder .

The deductions for issuing retort from principles of non violence and individuals are based on equitable doctrine .

 

[PoliticalChic]

This has been explained to you multiple times. Are you still confused?

Take your time. Let me know when you figure it out, you dumb bimbo.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."


Bet you won't write that again, huh?

I taught you a lesson.....say thank you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Relativism Of Perspective For Event Outcomes "

* Logical Fallacy Of Appeal To Authority *

When a tiger kills and eats a hue mammon ape , is that evil ?

A law exists because there is an entity capable of and issuing a retort for violations of some legal pretext .

Suppose a conjecture for a law against murder and the consequence is death , then when a killing occurs that is murder , an immediate consequence of death would be expected , but that does not occur so therefore there is not a law of nature or a law of goad against killing which would qualify as murder .

The deductions for issuing retort from principles of non violence and individuals are based on equitable doctrine .

We were never talking about tigers.....don't be stupid.


You wrote that one can look at a law and judge its morality.


Ever hear of the Nurenberg Laws?


It brings to mind a passage from Daniel Silva’s novel, ‘The Unlikely Spy:’

"Hitler changed all of that. Hitler believed in the rule of men, not the rule of law. Within months of taking power he turned Germany's entire judicial system upside down.
Führergewalt. - Führer power- became the absolute law of the land, and Hitler's every maniacal whim was immediately translated into codes and regulations.

Vogel remembered some of the ridiculous maxims coined by the architects of Hitler's legal overhaul of Germany: 'Law is what is useful to the German people! Law must be interpreted through healthy folk emotions!
When the normal judiciary stood in their way the Nazis established their own courts- Volksgerichtshof, the People's Courts.

...in October 1933, when 10,000 lawyers stood on the steps of the Reichsgericht in Leipzig, arms raised in the Nazi salute, and swore 'to follow the course of the Führer to the end of our days.'"

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Nature Does Not Validate Your Point Of View "

* Good Versus Evil Is Subjective Realism *

We were never talking about tigers.....don't be stupid.

When it comes to alleging a difference between good and evil , yes , we are including tigers .

* Deontologists Assert A Necessary Correlation Between Legalism And Morality *

You wrote that one can look at a law and judge its morality.

I do not recall making such a statement , in fact legal positivism relates that for every instance of law , there is not a necessary a correlation between morality and a law .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Not Currently Constitutional "

* Good Luck With That *

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."

For strump to run for a third term would require a constitutional amendment with approval by 2/3 of states .

 

[XponentialChaos]

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."


Bet you won't write that again, huh?

I taught you a lesson.....say thank you.

Was this not clarified for you?

Are you still confused?

What a dumb bimbo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Nature Does Not Validate Your Point Of View "

* Good Versus Evil Is Subjective Realism *

When it comes to alleging a difference between good and evil , yes , we are including tigers .

* Deontologists Assert A Necessary Correlation Between Legalism And Morality *

I do not recall making such a statement , in fact legal positivism relates that for every instance of law , there is not a necessary a correlation between morality and a law .

Did you write this?

"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 , ...."


In case you are unable to understand.....man is able to rationalize any....ANY....position that favors his opinion.

The only way to use terms like "ethically".....which is defined as "in a way that relates to moral principles"...is the object and unchanging views of the Bible.

Fact.


Every Leftist view is based on the lie that it is so correct that it change man's nature.....see "New Soviet Man," Nazis said the same thing.

Read about the Fascist Rousseau who spawned these views and claimed that death was the result of not agreeing with the "general will."

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Not Currently Constitutional "

* Good Luck With That *

For strump to run for a third term would require a constitutional amendment with approval by 2/3 of states .

Who is "strump"?

Have you just self-identified as a Democrat?


BTW....I explained the Constitution earlier, I guess you didn't bother to read the thread to which you voluntarily subscribed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Was this not clarified for you?

Are you still confused?

What a dumb bimbo.

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."


Bet you won't write that again, huh?

I taught you a lesson.....say thank you.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You wrote "So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional."


Bet you won't write that again, huh?

I taught you a lesson.....say thank you.

The mindless bimbo is stuck on repeat.

The misconception of yours was clarified for you multiple times. Are you still confused? Or are you just a weak-minded idiot who can’t address the actual point?

Maybe a little bit of both, huh?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Allegiance To E Pluribus Unum For Republic Of Etas Unis "

* Strumming Permeation Transferring Whether *

Who is "strump"?

Have you just self-identified as a Democrat?
BTW....I explained the Constitution earlier, I guess you didn't bother to read the thread to which you voluntarily subscribed.

A characteristic of despotic democratism would be promoting populism for democracy as tyranny by the collective majority through a bureaucracy that is against independence of the individual .

A characteristic of us republicanism would be promoting a motto of e pluribus unum , which espouses independence of the individual , through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , though as official motto it has been usurped .

Yearn acuity is no doubt aware of mediums , some of which are instruments termed strumpets .

. Where Were Non Violence Principles Applied ? .


* Expecting A Clear Point At Issue *

A pronoun is not a noun , such that referring to an object with the pronoun in a sentence , rather than stating or restating the noun , is incompletely described phraseology .

Rather than replying with " I explained the Constitution earlier " , restate or rephrase the explanation - a link just as well , to accentuate significant points at issue .

The nonsense of aimless ad-hominem responses is for guarded clowns .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Subjective Realism That Is Objective "

* Describing An Optional Perspective *

Did you write this?

"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 , ...."

The principles of non violence and individualism can be applied to construct a civil law system that is ethically valid and can be deduced from first principles , and which does not require an appeal to authority , which is relevant to antiniomian ethos .

The concept of perspectivism relates that any perspective is not independent of other perspectives , and though perspectivism rejects epistomological absolutes , perspectivism does relate that every perspective is not equally valid .