texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

evince said:
Im sure it doesn't say YOU are foreskin lips
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. The federal government does not own the Constitution. It cannot change it, interpret it, or ignore it. It is nothing more than an agent created by that Constitution and is wholly subject to it. It is the States that own the Constitution, and through them, the people. Only the States collectively can interpret it, change it, or even replace it.

The Constitution of the United States defines and creates the federal government and describes the form of that government and the authority that government has. That is it's sole purpose. Certain portions of it also apply to the States, as agreed to by the States themselves. Among those portions are the 2nd amendment. Another is the method of electing the President of the United States. Another is the guarantee of a republic form of government in all States (that each State has a constitution).

The Supreme Court is part of that agency created by the Constitution. It similarly has NO authority over the Constitution. Only the States have that, collectively.

The same thing applies to each State in turn. The constitution of a State defines and creates that State government. The owners of THAT constitution are the people of that State, NOT the State government, which is only an agent created by that constitution and is again wholly subject to it. Only the people of that State have the authority to interpret, change, or even replace that constitution, for they are the owners of that document, collectively.

The same thing applies to every county charter or parish charter. These are effectively the constitutions forming those governments and they are owned by the people of that county or parish, collectively.

The same thing applies to every city charter. These are effectively the constitutions forming those governments and they are owned by the people of that city, collectively.

NONE of these governments can interpret or change the constitutions that created them. Only the owners of those documents have that power.

The United States is organized as a federated republic. It is a nation with layers of governments, each created by a constitution.
 
domer76 said:
Nobody knows because the Senate did not take notes during the re-writing of the BofR. That’s where it was changed in a matter of days.

But the point escapes you once again, dimwit.

You asked for documentation from a framer and I gave you documentation from ghe AUTHOR.

Illiterate fool. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

The Senate does not have authority to change the Constitution. The Bill of Rights cannot be made part of the Constitution by the Senate.
 
evince said:
only fucking russo bot holes say the SCOTUS is not the final word
Click to expand...

Putting SCOTUS over the Constitution is to convert them into an oligarchy and destroys the concept of a republic and the Constitution with it.

They do NOT have authority over the Constitution. They cannot interpret it. They cannot change it.
 
evince said:
that is not what the laws of the USA says
Click to expand...
Lie. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the USA.
evince said:
to make a final decision on what comports with the constitution they have to use an interpetation of the constitution
Click to expand...
They do not have authority to interpret the Constitution. They must interpret the offending law only.
evince said:
THEIR OWN!!!!!!
Click to expand...
No. The States own the Constitution, and through them, the people. Only they can interpret the Constitution.
 
domer76 said:
Nobody knows because the Senate did not take notes during the re-writing of the BofR. That’s where it was changed in a matter of days.

But the point escapes you once again, dimwit.

You asked for documentation from a framer and I gave you documentation from ghe AUTHOR.

Illiterate fool. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

the point that you're obviously trying to ignore is that the senate did not write the bill of rights..........we the people did and WE did not include it in there.

why can't you follow logic, you idiotic cuck
 
domer76 said:
:lolup:

More “if/would” fantasy from an illiterate moron. Name an “if/would” that has ever occurred, idiot. Why do you cretins have to invent your own “realities”?

Fool. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

just one? if the USA drops a nuke on japan, would they surrender in WW2..............you lose, again.

don't you ever get tired of the illogical fallacies you try to post to justify your idiocy?
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act



The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching.[1] They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[2][3][4]
AB-1591 was authored by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland, John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[5] it passed both Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) and Senate (split 20:20) and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.
Click to expand...

No, it can't. California is bound to the requirements of the 2nd amendment, as all States are. It is either that, or it effectively leaves the Union (which is currently the condition of California, as it is no longer a State, since it no longer honors either the Constitution of the United States or even its own State constitution. California is no longer a republic. It is currently under an oligarchy form of government.)
 
jimmymccready said:
jimmymccready View Post
When I was young a lifetime ago, carrying a long arm or a handgun at your waist in parts of CA or AK or OR or UT, etc., did not cause excitement or alarm.

That is not the case now. The Constitution is a living document that must adapt and govern change in an ever morphing world.



That's your opinion and you are sticking to it.
Click to expand...

That is not an opinion. It is the law. Unless they want to completely ban weapons, any jurisdiction can pass about any gun control law wanted and many states have done so (assault weapon bans, background checks, etc.). Those jurisdictions that don't have such laws is because they choose politically not to do so---it is not because the 2nd has been interpreted in a way to prevent these regulations.
 
evince said:
that is not what the laws of the USA says


to make a final decision on what comports with the constitution they have to use an interpetation of the constitution


THEIR OWN!!!!!!
Click to expand...

not their own, moron. SCOTUS MUST USE THE MEANINGS THAT WE THE PEOPLE RATIFIED IT WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Flash said:
That is not an opinion. It is the law. Unless they want to completely ban weapons, any jurisdiction can pass about any gun control law wanted and many states have done so (assault weapon bans, background checks, etc.). Those jurisdictions that don't have such laws is because they choose politically not to do so---it is not because the 2nd has been interpreted in a way to prevent these regulations.
Click to expand...

no, it is BECAUSE the 2nd has been interpreted, incorrectly I will add, that people sheepishly believe 'shall not be infringed' actuallly means 'reasonable regulations'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top