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

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah, YOU wrote the Constitution.

Are you trying to best your forum Stupidest Post “vehicles cannot be necessary”?

no, you already have bested it. your refusal to acknowledge that 'we the people' includes you and I, you're too stupid to be on the internet. turn your computer off and go clean your fucking room, child.

[SmarterthanYou]

your argument is dead racist assholes

you are not the we

who is the 'we' then, cumguzzler?

[evince]

who is the 'we' then, cumguzzler?

not you russo bot holes


bite a dead mules cock you fake American

[evince]

no, you already have bested it. your refusal to acknowledge that 'we the people' includes you and I, you're too stupid to be on the internet. turn your computer off and go clean your fucking room, child.

you are a fake American


you hate everything about this nation

but you LOVE putins balls

[SmarterthanYou]

not you russo bot holes

can't answer that question? you don't know the answer?

bite a dead mules cock you fake American

says the racist and traitorous hypocrite

[domer76]

[B]SmarterthanYou;3157941]you don't think that BEFORE they dropped that bomb, they weren't thinking if/would????? if you ignore that, you're monumentally idiotic and too stupid to be on the internet

Still failing, illiterate cunt. Not one example of an “if/would” that has EVER happened. Just make believe babble.

What a laughable cretin you are.

[SmarterthanYou]

you are a fake American


you hate everything about this nation

but you LOVE putins balls

you make up stupid shit that's nonsensical...........at least it's funny watching you melt down

[domer76]

no, you already have bested it. your refusal to acknowledge that 'we the people' includes you and I, you're too stupid to be on the internet. turn your computer off and go clean your fucking room, child.

Yeah, YOU wrote the Constitution.

Forum dumbfuck.

[SmarterthanYou]

Still failing, illiterate cunt. Not one example of an “if/would” that has EVER happened. Just make believe babble.

What a laughable cretin you are.

how did you fit your head up your ass?

you're worthless. it would almost be laughable, except there's too many of you fucktards who are pushing this traitorous false shit to the public. I look forward to your public execution during the civil war

[evince]

can't answer that question? you don't know the answer?


says the racist and traitorous hypocrite

you are NOT an American


you are a russo bot hole that haates EVERYTHING AMERICAN


even if you were an American we the people doesn't mean we have to side with a brain damaged racist like you


we the people doesn't mean YOU get your way

[domer76]

how did you fit your head up your ass?

you're worthless. it would almost be laughable, except there's too many of you fucktards who are pushing this traitorous false shit to the public. I look forward to your public execution during the civil war

Still waiting on your “if/would”, stupid shit.

Certainly, in all the history of mankind, you can find ONE example. Or not.

[evince]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison




Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
The case originated from the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing U.S. President John Adams, who espoused the pro-business and pro-national-government ideals of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party, and incoming President Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republican Party and favored agriculture and decentralization.[2] Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson, and in March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the Democratic-Republican Party.[3] The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams's appointments, but upon Jefferson's inauguration two days later, a few of the new judges' commissions still had not been delivered.[3] Jefferson believed the commissions were void because they had not been delivered in time, and instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.[4] One of the men whose commissions had not been delivered in time was William Marbury, a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and the Federalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission.[5]
In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal, and secondly that it was normally proper for a court in such situations to order the government official in question to deliver the commission.[6] However, in Marbury's case, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, Marshall found that it had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set down in the U.S. Constitution.[7] Marshall then struck down the law, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution.[8] Because this meant the Court had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not issue the writ that Marbury had requested.

boom


you are fucked by the facts

[evince]

you make up stupid shit that's nonsensical...........at least it's funny watching you melt down

the facts fuck you hard


you cant even remember the name of the case I just handed you huh russo bot hole

[Flash]

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'

That is because you are one of the few who believe the Bill of Rights are absolute and cannot be regulated.

Do you believe, for example, that the 1st freedom of the press cannot prohibit pictures of child pornography or allow libel laws? These are both regulations although the 1st says "no law" which is as absolute as "shall not be infringed."

Do you also think convicted murderers shall have the same rights to own and carry weapons as everybody else?

[Into the Night]

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.

No, they can't just ban any particular weapon. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that specifies any type of weapon.