Page 31 of 35 FirstFirst ... 21272829303132333435 LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 511

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

  1. #451 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.
    WRONG. A 'living document' is not a constitution at all. You cannot void a constitution in this way.

  2. #452 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    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.
    Doesn't matter. Dictionaries don't define words. Whoever it was understood the same thing about dictionaries.

    Since you consider any like opinion proof of a sock, you must be a sock of StoneByStone, moon, Cypress, Adolf_Twitler, and a host of others.
    Last edited by Into the Night; 07-21-2019 at 01:49 PM.

  3. #453 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    36,752
    Thanks
    7,691
    Thanked 9,415 Times in 7,108 Posts
    Groans
    40
    Groaned 3,664 Times in 3,052 Posts

    Default

    Is there a gnat in the room?

  4. #454 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    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.
    No. It is not a 'living document'. You cannot void the Constitution that way.

  5. #455 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    36,811
    Thanks
    38,171
    Thanked 9,836 Times in 7,534 Posts
    Groans
    9,874
    Groaned 5,582 Times in 5,005 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Why is it you people can't recognize the fact that Constitutional rights can be regulated, that no right, none, are absolute, ever one can be, and are, regulated, simple fact. Carrying long guns in public can be legally regulated
    When will you acquire the definition of "shall not be infringed"?
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  6. #456 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    WRONG. The right to self defense is inherent. There is NO designation of any weapon by type in the 2nd amendment.

  7. #457 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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?
    No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

  8. #458 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    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.
    No court has authority to change the Constitution. It can only be changed by the amendment process, which is specific. Only the States may change the Constitution, and only by the procedure outlined in the Constitution itself.

  9. #459 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    Lie. The Court does not have authority to usurp authority over the Constitution. Time makes no difference.

  10. #460 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    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.
    No court has authority over the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

  11. #461 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    ^There’s the idiot again, thinking he’s the author of the Constitution.
    Lie.

  12. #462 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Thank you for raising that point. What the Founders thought then really is immaterial now.

    We all know TJ was boinking his slave and Maria Conway in France when the Constitution was being written in the US.
    You cannot void the Constitution that way, dumbass.

  13. #463 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    45,721
    Thanks
    58,950
    Thanked 25,930 Times in 17,008 Posts
    Groans
    1,949
    Groaned 2,617 Times in 2,452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    WRONG. The Constitution can ONLY be changed by States and ONLY through a specific means, listed in the Constitution itself.
    The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
    kag: to choke something down in disgust

    Keep America Gagging

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Phantasmal For This Post:

    jimmymccready (07-21-2019)

  15. #464 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    One fucking thing for sure, YOU aren’t.
    He never said he was, dumbass.

  16. #465 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8,402
    Thanks
    1,569
    Thanked 2,102 Times in 1,811 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 101 Times in 97 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    That is immaterial, StY: that was then and this is now. I have no desire to live in the world of 1793.
    Since you have no desire to live under the Constitution...leave. No one is stopping you. May I suggest China or Cuba?
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Accept some counsel: you are not enlightened, you have no special insight.
    He actually read the Constitution. So did I. That's more than what can be said for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Instead you are working out inner frustrations because people do not take you seriously. That is not because they are assholes.
    Psychoquackery.

Similar Threads

  1. Court: Texas can enforce more of 'sanctuary cities' law
    By Pappy Jones in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2017, 06:04 AM
  2. APP - What if Texas just ignores the Supreme Court?
    By QuidProJoe in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-01-2016, 11:18 AM
  3. Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law
    By Leonthecat in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-27-2016, 07:50 PM
  4. Tom DeLay conviction overturned by Texas court
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-22-2013, 03:51 PM
  5. 'Next Bush' makes campaign filing in Texas
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 01:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •