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

[Into the Night]

Dictionaries don't define laws,

Correct. They don't.

Science doesn't exist,

It does, by Proof of Identity, and as a result of philosophical arguments.

facts aren't facts,

They are, by Proof of Identity. A fact is simply an assumed predicate.

the Gov't is illegal,

No government is illegal. Not even a dictatorship.

geocentric model has never been invalidated,

It was falsified by Galileo.

everything is a fallacy,

Compositional error fallacy.

and if you request any proof you have to google it yourself

Google is not a proof or the results of it is not a proof.

Got to admit the guy is entertaining

Care to try to rant some more with your lies of what I have said?

 

[Flash]

Article I, Section 8, giving the House power of the budget, and the Senate the power to approve that budget. The Emergency Powers act allows the President to appropriate money from 'other programs' for emergency purposes. That money is essentially a general fund, and the President can use it as he sees fit, else it goes into designated programs. It's a budget item, legally passed by Congress.

The court does not have authority to change the Constitution, dumbass. They do it illegallly.

You claim Congress has the power to change the Constitution. It specifically gives Congress the power to appropriate money and there is nothing giving them the power to delegate that authority to the president to spend as he sees fit. It violates separation of powers. If Congress can change the Constitution so can the courts.

If the president says it is not illegal when he does something maybe the courts took that same attitude--it is not illegal when they do it. Or more to the point, it is not illegal because you say it is.

 

[Flash]

People define words. It's what makes a language 'live' and ever changing.

Like the Constitution--ever changing to apply to new circumstances not specifically covered before.

 

[jimmymccready]

A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.

 

[jimmymccready]

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.

Not completely so. SCOTUS overrode D.C.'s banning of hand guns, e.g. Your opinion is not law, Flash.

 

[Lord Yurt]

Nope. No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word. Dictionaries are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation, and give examples of how a word is used, but they do not define any word.

People define words. It's what makes a language 'live' and ever changing. They are used to communicate ideas. People define words, collectively. The study of where a word comes from is a hobby of mine, called etymology.

Some words, like 'science', 'religion', 'reality', etc. are defined by philosophical arguments. Some words are defined as specialist lingo in a trade, a branch of knowledge, or a cultural environment, such as 'mathematics', 'logic', 'volt', 'ampere', 'matrix', or 'liftoff', 'you', 'me', 'food', 'drink'. Some are define as constructs for a language, such as 'and', 'but', 'or', 'because'.

But no dictionary defined any of them. These words existed long before dictionaries themselves, and will exist even if every dictionary was destroyed.

A book is not a language. A language is not a book.

Word

 

[domer76]

Dictionaries don't define laws, Science doesn't exist, facts aren't facts, the Gov't is illegal, geocentric model has never been invalidated, everything is a fallacy, and if you request any proof you have to google it yourself

Got to admit the guy is entertaining

This guy is a sock that I can’t put my finger on. The absurd claim that dictionaries don’t provide definitions of words has been used by someone else in the past, but I can’t recall who.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Like the Constitution--ever changing to apply to new circumstances not specifically covered before.

the constitution does not give the government that power to adapt to 'new circumstances'.........that is up to the authors. we the people.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.

which is why the constitution is not a living document

 

[Lord Yurt]

This guy is a sock that I can’t put my finger on. The absurd claim that dictionaries don’t provide definitions of words has been used by someone else in the past, but I can’t recall who.

Your mom?

 

[jimmymccready]

jimmymccready A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.

which is why the constitution is not a living document

Yes, the Constitution is a living document, that's why arguments against fail.

 

[jimmymccready]

Your mom?

So James M. (your old buddy Edward T.) is your twin brother from different fathers?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

jimmymccready A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.

Yes, the Constitution is a living document, that's why arguments against fail.

you are incorrect. the constitution is a static, legal document that restricts the federal government and can only be changed by it's authors, we the people

 

[Flash]

Not completely so. SCOTUS overrode D.C.'s banning of hand guns, e.g. Your opinion is not law, Flash.

Yes, the exception is a complete ban although at the time that only applied to federal legislation and not the states.

But those regulations advocated by gun-control supporters are possible and exist in various forms in many states. My point was that all the debate over the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is an interesting academic debate but does prevent most of those laws gun control people imply are being prevented by that interpretation.

 

[Flash]

the constitution does not give the government that power to adapt to 'new circumstances'.........that is up to the authors. we the people.

But the people don't change constitutional interpretation---only the federal courts do so. The people didn't decide in the recent case that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Constitution--it was a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.

You are one of "we the people"--how did you influence that decision?

 

[jimmymccready]

Of course the Constitution, through SCOTUS or the amendment process, adapts to new circumstances.

To suggest that it is "static" is barking mad and leads to political insanity.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But the people don't change constitutional interpretation---only the federal courts do so.

they do not have the constitutional power to do that

The people didn't decide in the recent case that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Constitution--it was a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.

state redistricting issues are not within the purview of the federal court system. That is for the states/people alone to decide.

You are one of "we the people"--how did you influence that decision?

In Texas? I voted Libertarian. that is the only influence allowed, not having the federal court usurp power that doesn't belong to them

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course the Constitution, through SCOTUS or the amendment process, adapts to new circumstances.

That is not a power that SCOTUS has. they have no constitutional authority to redefine the constitution

To suggest that it is "static" is barking mad and leads to political insanity.

allowing the government to redefine it's powers and limitations is the insanity. it's the death of freedom.

the government was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. - thomas jefferson

 

[Flash]

they do not have the constitutional power to do that

state redistricting issues are not within the purview of the federal court system. That is for the states/people alone to decide.

Yet, they have been doing so for 200+ years. It seems to be established law by now and the "we, the people" obviously accept it because we have done nothing to change it.

 

[jimmymccready]

One can argue that SCOTUS has no constitutional mandate to interpret the Constitution in the light of the times, and that is their opinion, a wrong one.

Thomas Jefferson had his opinion, too, a decidedly minority one that has had little impact historically on the issue.