losing dem majority in 2010

SmarterThanYou said:
then you obviously prefer courts to make decisions on whats best for present society instead of actual text. so why not scrap the constitution and let 9 black robed individuals tell you whats right and wrong.
Click to expand...


I prefer to let nine black robed justices interpret the constitution as a living document that can adapt to the changing world in which we live. It is my sense that those nine folks have been trying to do that since the days of Marbury v. Madison.
 
maineman said:
I prefer to let nine black robed justices interpret the constitution as a living document that can adapt to the changing world in which we live. It is my sense that those nine folks have been trying to do that since the days of Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...

which has been a huge mistake from the get go. the constitution is NOT a living document, despite what some liberals wish to believe. If it WERE a living document, you could end up with a governmental foundation totally opposite of what the framers of the constitution originally intended which could produce a tyranny.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
which has been a huge mistake from the get go. the constitution is NOT a living document, despite what some liberals wish to believe. If it WERE a living document, you could end up with a governmental foundation totally opposite of what the framers of the constitution originally intended which could produce a tyranny.
Click to expand...

and there we are.... there is not universal agreement on what is wrong about court decisions, nor about what is right with them. c'est la vie.
 
With a President ready to make some intelligent SCOTUS nominations and a filibuster-proof Senate majority ready to confirm them, I'd say STY is in for a rough time!
 
maineman said:
and there we are.... there is not universal agreement on what is wrong about court decisions, nor about what is right with them. c'est la vie.
Click to expand...

its your fault, not mine, that you have no understanding of legal documents.

tell me, do you REALLY want 9 conservative justices interpreting the constitution the way THEY think it ought to be?
 
maineman said:
I prefer to let nine black robed justices interpret the constitution as a living document that can adapt to the changing world in which we live. It is my sense that those nine folks have been trying to do that since the days of Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...

so when a court reviews a statute and let's say the statute was written in the 1800's...are you saying you want the court to ignore the intent of the authors of that statute and interpret in the current vernacular etc..?

IMO, such a view, especially of the constitution, erodes its value and power....if it can simply be reinterpreted willy nilly based on what we "now" believe and how we "now" thinks it fits our changing world, then why have a constitution in writing? why not say "this document can be changed as you, our successors, see fit".....

fact is, they made very strict rules regarding changing the constitution, don't you think that was on purpose?
 
DNC said:
With a President ready to make some intelligent SCOTUS nominations and a filibuster-proof Senate majority ready to confirm them, I'd say STY is in for a rough time!
Click to expand...

and you will no doubt be honest and sit by when conservatives have a majority.....right....you won't say a word
 
ib1yysguy said:
I don't believe only government should own firearms. I own a gun myself. I don't believe registration of firearms is a threat to my ability own a gun, however. It's certainly not mentioned in the constitution.
Click to expand...

i apologize, i thought you argued the stance that we, the citizens, do not have a right to own guns....what are you talking about re: killing them...etc...
 
maineman said:
and the definition of "wrongs" is hardly ever universally accepted, is it?

What YOU might think of as a wrong from the past, I might disagree with and not want redefined by a new SCOTUS. Similarly, what I might think of as a wrong from the past, you might disagree with. Correct?
Click to expand...

so precedent is worthless in your opinion?
 
The democratic party will be committing political suicide if they make a serious attempt to pass this bill. For one thing, it completely supervents private property rights by making private firearms sales illegal. And despite some assurances of ignorant democratic puss heads, yes, registration will eventually lead to confiscation. Just like Britain and Autralia, who were assured time and again that registering would not lead to confiscation, yet class by class their firearms were taken, it will happen here. There are people (and I use the term loosely) here who would even support eventual confiscation. To them I say FUCK YOU. (Totalitarian fascist bastards.)

To evince:
I am quite sane, yet vehemently oppose any and all federal firearms control legislation. Also, yes such a law will make a criminal out of me, since I will NOT comply. Do you really support making a criminal out of a 40 year veteran, twice wounded in combat and once in a training accident who has no other criminal record? If so, go join your fascist fuckup friends in the FUCK YOU column.

The I be one really stupid jackass: Fuck you isn't good enough, but will have to do. But if/when it comes to confiscating our firearms, I hope they draft your sorry ass into the fascist brownshirts given the job of trying to get my firearms. I already put my life on the line for my Constitution, I have no problem doing so again. If I must die for the sake of Liberty, so be it - I guarantee you I will take a suitably sized contingent of fascist pigs with me.

To Maine Man: If you think interpreting the 2nd Amendment to be limited to state national guards, you are more ignorant of history than someone of your stature should be. You are also a fucking traitor to your military oath.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
at somewhere over 80 million gun owners in america, that equals right around 2.5 million, possibly a tad more since gun sales have skyrocketed lately.
Click to expand...
There a approximately 320 million people in the United States. All we would need is 12% of current firearms owners to have our 3% I'd bet we have at least twice that. And a lot of non-firearms owners would be firmly in the supporter group, as would a large percentage of firearms owners no in the 3%.

In short, we have more now than we did then.

It's why the 2nd Amendment was written: so the people can have final authority against a run away government.
 
DNC said:
Roe v Wade is for today's time.
Click to expand...

so no prior cases were cited? ONLY TODAY'S cases....

honestly, i don't your opinions about gun control, your obsessive, fanatical trolling only brings people together (i think socreates sp? said that)...but dude, do you honestly think you help your point by arguing things that are factually false?

oh wait, that bolsters my point you are a troll seeking to erode the anti gun nuts...thanks buddy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top