Page 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2329303132333435 LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 511

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

  1. #481 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    5,032
    Thanks
    1,784
    Thanked 2,070 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 338 Times in 313 Posts

    Default

    jimmymccready Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

    Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.
    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    that is patently absurd bullshit
    The truth hurts, but that is the nature of logic and definitions. They challenge belief without foundation. The libertarian and the right wing fascist ideologies are great threats to American society.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  2. #482 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That means the courts are interpreting the Constitution by choosing to dismiss cases they interpret as based on an unconstitutional law.

    That does not solve the problem of presidential actions and legislative laws that do not involve cases brought before the courts. If the president issued an unconstitutional executive order or Congress passed an unconstitutional governmental program (ACC) there are no cases brought to the courts.

    The only cases would be suits challenging the constitutionality of those acts and that involves court interpretation of the Constitution.
    executive orders that are unconstitutional, but bring no cases before a court, are checked by congress. they can impeach or pass a law that invalidates said order.

    unconstitutional laws that do not bring cases before the court are checked by the executive by not enforcing them.

    to interpret something, that something would have to be vague. the constitution is not. a law passed by congress might be, but the courts can invalidate the law for vagueness and that has nothing to do with interpreting the constituiton
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

  3. #483 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    jimmymccready Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

    Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.

    The truth hurts, but that is the nature of logic and definitions. They challenge belief without foundation. The libertarian and the right wing fascist ideologies are great threats to American society.
    that must mean that liberals truly hate freedom, because that's what libertarian ideology is all about.

    libertarianswereright.jpg
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

  4. #484 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    15,079
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 6,538 Times in 4,510 Posts
    Groans
    87
    Groaned 992 Times in 922 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This case is about the vagueness of the information, not the substantive right.

    Setting aside that you are clearly not qualified to talk about case law, let's cut to the chase,

    Are you for or against a person brandishing a weapon in public and thereby scaring the shit out of people?
    What if I jump up on my table, pull out my shotgun and wave it around motioning everyone to the ground?
    Is that alarming to you? What if I go to a park bench with a bunch of kids and take out said weapon
    and methodically start cleaning it and stroking it while giggling and laughing demonically? What if I sit at Denny's across
    from your wife and gently set down my pistol with the barrel aimed at her? Alarming?

    Keep those things at home locked up or in your truck unless you are in a field on "N ranch" shooting your dinner.

  5. #485 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    44,389
    Thanks
    56,900
    Thanked 24,675 Times in 16,287 Posts
    Groans
    1,896
    Groaned 2,306 Times in 2,163 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    that must mean that liberals truly hate freedom, because that's what libertarian ideology is all about.

    libertarianswereright.jpg
    Exaggeration once more, to think liberals hate freedom, it’s just silliness.
    kag: to choke something down in disgust

    Keep America Gagging

  6. #486 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    15,079
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 6,538 Times in 4,510 Posts
    Groans
    87
    Groaned 992 Times in 922 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Exaggeration once more, to think liberals hate freedom, it’s just silliness.
    You are exaggerating. "Hate freedom"

  7. #487 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    This case is about the vagueness of the information, not the substantive right.

    Setting aside that you are clearly not qualified to talk about case law, let's cut to the chase,
    i'm not qualified to talk about case law??? ROFL

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Are you for or against a person brandishing a weapon in public and thereby scaring the shit out of people?
    define brandishing. Because if it's what I think brandishing is, then no. If it's what the typical anti gunner calls brandishing, then yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    What if I jump up on my table, pull out my shotgun and wave it around motioning everyone to the ground?
    pretty sure we call that armed robbery

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Is that alarming to you? What if I go to a park bench with a bunch of kids and take out said weapon
    what if you're in an open carry state? should that be alarming?

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    and methodically start cleaning it and stroking it while giggling and laughing demonically?
    are we using my definition of branding? then that would be alarming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    What if I sit at Denny's across from your wife and gently set down my pistol with the barrel aimed at her? Alarming?
    are you prepared to have her shoot you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Keep those things at home locked up or in your truck unless you are in a field on "N ranch" shooting your dinner.
    so you don't believe we have a right to self defense outside the home? is that the liberal belief in might makes right?
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

  8. #488 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Exaggeration once more, to think liberals hate freedom, it’s just silliness.
    i also think conservatives hate freedom, but since i've been calling out a liberal, i use a liberal pointer
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

  9. #489 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,097
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked 1,446 Times in 1,201 Posts
    Groans
    67
    Groaned 52 Times in 51 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    executive orders that are unconstitutional, but bring no cases before a court, are checked by congress. they can impeach or pass a law that invalidates said order.

    unconstitutional laws that do not bring cases before the court are checked by the executive by not enforcing them.
    That would assume Congress opposes that executive order or the president opposes the legislation (which he could have vetoed). If the president chose not to enforce a law passed by Congress he is violating his constitutional oath to see that the law is faithfully executed.

    If Congress and the president support those acts then there is no check on their constitutionality.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    to interpret something, that something would have to be vague. the constitution is not. a law passed by congress might be, but the courts can invalidate the law for vagueness and that has nothing to do with interpreting the constituiton
    There is much in the Constitution that is vague or does not cover modern events and must be interpreted by the courts. Does "necessary and proper" mean absolutely necessary or just convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress? Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree on its meaning in the creation of a national bank. Thus, the courts had to interpret that provision that determined the constitutionality of the bank.

    You seemed willing to ignore the president's order to faithfully execute the laws--does that mean the president has a choice whether to enforce a law. If so, the Constitution's provision to execute the laws is not actually a requirement.

  10. #490 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That would assume Congress opposes that executive order or the president opposes the legislation (which he could have veto. If the president chose not to enforce a law passed by Congress he is violating his constitutional oath to see that the law is faithfully executed.

    If Congress and the president support those acts then there is no check on their unconstitutionality.
    if the presidents veto is overridden, then we the people have spoken and are obviously in favor of it, thus it is constitutional. if the president then refuses to enforce a law that has been passed with a veto proof majority, he can then be impeached.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    There is much in the Constitution that is vague or does not cover modern events and must be interpreted by the courts.
    the constitution isn't relevant when it comes to modern events because the constitution is a document that restricts the government, not the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Does "necessary and proper" mean absolutely necessary or just convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress?
    'necessary and proper' is confined to being exercised in pursuance of the express written powers of congress. If a law is passed that has nothing to do with those powers, it is null and void.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree on its meaning in the creation of a national bank. Thus, the courts had to interpret that provision that determined the constitutionality of the national bank.
    that wasn't their purview or in their power to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You seemed willing to ignore the president's order to faithfully execute the laws.
    should a president be required to enforce an obviously unconstitutional law? or is the matter of constitutionality only belong to the judiciary?
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

  11. #491 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    5,032
    Thanks
    1,784
    Thanked 2,070 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 338 Times in 313 Posts

    Default

    Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

    Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    that must mean that liberals truly hate freedom, because that's what libertarian ideology is all about.
    Ummm... nope.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  12. #492 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    5,032
    Thanks
    1,784
    Thanked 2,070 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 338 Times in 313 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Exaggeration once more, to think liberals hate freedom, it’s just silliness.
    Indeed.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  13. #493 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

    Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.

    Ummm... nope.
    then you are terribly ill informed about libertarianism.
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

  14. #494 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    5,032
    Thanks
    1,784
    Thanked 2,070 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 338 Times in 313 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    then you are terribly ill informed about libertarianism.
    Far better than you. I know its results.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  15. #495 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    40,951
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    Far better than you. I know its results.
    please, show me those results.
    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - President John Adams
    "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
    -John Adams

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, 05:04 AM
  2. APP - What if Texas just ignores the Supreme Court?
    By Mohamud Loves Bukkake in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-01-2016, 10:18 AM
  3. Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law
    By Leonthecat in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-27-2016, 06:50 PM
  4. Tom DeLay conviction overturned by Texas court
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-22-2013, 02:51 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, 12:35 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
  •