Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?

[Robo]

Sit-in demonstrations, any good patriotic American would logically think would be instigated strictly protesting violations of our Constitution by government. Seems the Congressional House Democrats see them as demonstrations to protest an unwillingness by the Republicans to violate the Constitution.

Can anybody here argue favorable for the Democrats insistence to violate their oath of office “to govern in accordance with the Constitution?” Do Democrats not understand the 5th Amendment and the inalienable right of “due process of law?” Do Democrat law makers even read the Constitution, the rule of law they swear their oath too?

[canceled.2021.2]

is that a rhetorical question

democrats wipe their asses with the US Constitution. Remember when Obama said that the US Constitution is a set of "negative rights". What he meant is that the US Constitution is an impediment to statists who want to run our lives for us

[canceled.2021.2]

Sit-in demonstrations, any good patriotic American would logically think would be instigated strictly protesting violations of our Constitution by government. Seems the Congressional House Democrats see them as demonstrations to protest an unwillingness by the Republicans to violate the Constitution.

Can anybody here argue favorable for the Democrats insistence to violate their oath of office “to govern in accordance with the Constitution?” Do Democrats not understand the 5th Amendment and the inalienable right of “due process of law?” Do Democrat law makers even read the Constitution, the rule of law they swear their oath too?

On a separate note, this is why I have parted ways with the GOP. While they are right on the issue, they are feckless in fighting the PR war with the demalquedacrats. They should be out in full force saying this is about DUE PROCESS. But, no they let the demalquedacrats win the PR wars EVERY SINGLE TIME.

This is why Trump won the primary. He may not be the most polished, but he doesn't take shit and people are tired of the GOP taking shit

[SmarterthanYou]

On a separate note, this is why I have parted ways with the GOP. While they are right on the issue, they are feckless in fighting the PR war with the demalquedacrats. They should be out in full force saying this is about DUE PROCESS. But, no they let the demalquedacrats win the PR wars EVERY SINGLE TIME.

they did that because if they came out for due process now, they'd be heralded as hypocrites for ignoring due process for the crap after 9/11

[Robo]

On a separate note, this is why I have parted ways with the GOP. While they are right on the issue, they are feckless in fighting the PR war with the demalquedacrats. They should be out in full force saying this is about DUE PROCESS. But, no they let the demalquedacrats win the PR wars EVERY SINGLE TIME.

This is why Trump won the primary. He may not be the most polished, but he doesn't take shit and people are tired of the GOP taking shit

Good luck with Trump. He's the only candidate I've seen in my lifetime that had the balls to stand on the stage and admit, actually brag about making his fortune bribing public officials. Apparently he's not smart enough to realize that's a felony. Then there's Hillary the other felon that sure as hell will be exempted from prosecution by the most corrupt Obama Justice Department.

"Don't vote, it only encourages the corrupt bastards." --P.J O'Rourke

[Robo]

they did that because if they came out for due process now, they'd be heralded as hypocrites for ignoring due process for the crap after 9/11

Shame on anybody that doesn't realize damn near all of the duopoly bastards are hypocrites.

[Elvis]

most wealthy politicians are crooks in our eyes

[Stelakh]

Sit-in demonstrations, any good patriotic American would logically think would be instigated strictly protesting violations of our Constitution by government. Seems the Congressional House Democrats see them as demonstrations to protest an unwillingness by the Republicans to violate the Constitution.

I suppose the first question would be: What unwillingness to engage in violation of the Constitution are the Democrats protesting?

[F_Donald_Weldon]

“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

[Leonthecat]

“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

Poor Bobo.

[Minister of Truth]

I'm not aware that they ever read the document.

[midcan5]

LOL Post 8 above asked the pertinent question.

But I'm sure we didn't need the Civil war if only we followed the constitution. And Civil rights that was easy too. Separate but equal sure thing. Labor rights, just ask and you shall receive. Wingnuts like children ask the funniest questions. You all just lookee here in this here document, dats all you needs to do. Too funny.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy And Tactics

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays...e-obstruction/

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays...three-minutes/

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays...y-and-history/

[Robo]

I suppose the first question would be: What unwillingness to engage in violation of the Constitution are the Democrats protesting?

"Due Process."

[Robo]

“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

This thread is about "due process." Have you ever heard of it?

[Robo]

Poor Bobo.

As usual, you're at a loss for intelligent discourse, so you prove your mindless, clueless stupidity. Go find your ass buddy wife Troll.