"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"
Ben Carson wants government to punish universities for speech he disagrees with and liberals "hate" free speech - such is the idiocy of the thread premise.
Punish?
You dope....read the Constitution....the federal government has no authority to fund any university.
You really should take some law courses, C_Chamber_Pot.
There is another of your lies!!!!
I've proven beyond any doubt by producing citations from U S v. Butler (1936) that your earlier claim that, "...the federal government has no authority to fund any university...." is false and is made manifestly so in the decision. But rather than admit your error, you lie to avoid admitting you're WRONG and double, double and then double down again. Hubris and stupidity compliment your penchant to lie, Chica!
Cite where the Constitution gives such authority.....
Can't, can you.
OK...OK...It's too late to prevent you from making an ass of yourself, but....stop begging: here's further remediation:
The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'
1. All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.
2. Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain within the province of the state courts.
That would be American jurisprudence.
3. The Constitution itself provided the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process.
Any other alteration is an illegal act.....the method of Liberals and Progressives.
4. If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional.
If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law.
Never make the mistake of posting that Supreme Court Justices have any.....any.....authority to change, alter, re-write the Constitution.
The Judicial Powers were vested and SCOTUS came about via Article III. That wasn't hard at all, was it! Judicial Review was discussed by Hamilton in Federalist #78 which you have refused to even comment on in the past because it would put the LIE to your idiotic notions that the Constitution was not subject to any interpretation but your own!
According to you, Judicial Review is unconstitutional and all SCOTUS case law should be thrown out! It is defined as,
"Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review was established in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)." [Emphasis Added] <
Judicial Review >
1. IF as you state, "All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution" why are there dissenting opinions in so very many cases? Answer that logically if "All Supreme Court Justices" as you claim. Why are all SCOTUS decisions unanimous? And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?
2. You claim that, "Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain within the province of the state courts" is hot air! With just consideration of the Supremacy Clause, your claim is shot full of holes. That clause can't be found in Article !, Section 8, Chica. I could go on, but it would be nothing more than casting pearls! And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?
3. You make yet another false claim with, "The Constitution itself provided the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process." You again ignore Judicial Review to your discredit as a reasonable person (being kind here). If review by the Supremes is unconstitutional in your mind, and all those cases SCOTUS decided, as in U S v. Butler for one, by INTERPRETING Constitutional language, the Constitution itself would be no better off than old Articles of Confederation and Butler would never have obtained standing before the Court. But I doubt you even understand what the hell I'm talking about!!!!
But where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?
4. Your final false claim, "If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional. If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law" can only be considered ill informed in the least and totally ignorant at the nadir! The obvious case that would put the LIE to that sophistry Would be a case between two Federal agencies or the Federal and/or private corporate interest. Which State law would be used in those cases where a State wasn't even a party to the case? That doesn't even get past the smell test at 100 yards. And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?
In your closing remark you wrote, "Never make the mistake of posting that Supreme Court Justices have any.....any.....authority to change, alter, re-write the Constitution." You don't agree because you would stick with your sophistry rather that be an honest person about your errors to lie instead. I suggest that you edify yourself before you go off halfcocked with stupid and unfounded characterizations of either the Constitution or others to whom you respond with such idiotic drivel, Chica!
READ! -
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic]
say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >
