Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 511

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

  1. #391 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    Please do some research before believing everything you see in memes. The reason the British Empire let America go is because of their war with France.
    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, all we had to do is sit back and wait!!

    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  2. #392 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    They are not restrictions on federal power. They clarify restrictions on federal power that were already there. Unless the federal government is specifically given a power, they do not have it!
    What specific power is the federal government given that allows Congress to give the president emergency powers or gives the president the power to exercise those powers or issue executive orders?

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The federal government can pass no law concerning the press. The 1st amendment clarifies that. The States can pass any kind of law they want concerning the press IF their constitutions give them that authority.

    The federal government cannot abridge the free press. The States can.
    Until 1931 when the Supreme Court incorporated free press to restrict states in Near v. Minnesota.

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
    Yes, they do so regularly including striking down state laws as unconstitutional for violating free press.

  3. #393 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    congrats, you just made the liberals argument for a well regulated militia, you moron.
    No, I educated a dumbass, dishonorably discharged coward on the definition of a word.

  4. #394 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,491
    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 CFM View Post
    No, I educated a dumbass, dishonorably discharged coward on the definition of a word.
    your dictionary is broken, because you didn't do anything of the sort, cuckboy
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  5. #395 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Yurt View Post
    Do they? How so?
    I suggest you study history to see examples of this.

  6. #396 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    They already have whether you accept it not. Last time I looked, you not agreeing nor accepting something didn't change facts.
    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.
    Last edited by Into the Night; 07-20-2019 at 11:43 AM.

  7. #397 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,976
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Yurt View Post
    What? While you what? You bore me with your old man angry antics that never actually addresses a thread topic. All you are is a bitter old fart who thinks solely insulting people on an internet political board is somehow cool. It makes you feel superior, in some sadistic way.

    You're a complete narcissist.

    Buy bye loser.....
    Smoke another doob, stoner. See how much smarter you get.

  8. #398 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    I'm not going to clutter up the forum with every little case where they've done so. Go look it up yourself if you want.
    "Go look it yourself," how come I'm not surprised

    Next

  9. #399 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    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.
    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

  10. #400 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    What specific power is the federal government given that allows Congress to give the president emergency powers or gives the president the power to exercise those powers
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    or issue executive orders?
    Article II.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Until 1931 when the Supreme Court incorporated free press to restrict states in Near v. Minnesota.
    The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Yes, they do so regularly including striking down state laws as unconstitutional for violating free press.
    The court does not have authority to change the Constitution, dumbass. They do it illegallly.

  11. #401 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Dictionaries don't define laws,
    Correct. They don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Science doesn't exist,
    It does, by Proof of Identity, and as a result of philosophical arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    facts aren't facts,
    They are, by Proof of Identity. A fact is simply an assumed predicate.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    the Gov't is illegal,
    No government is illegal. Not even a dictatorship.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    geocentric model has never been invalidated,
    It was falsified by Galileo.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    everything is a fallacy,
    Compositional error fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Got to admit the guy is entertaining
    Care to try to rant some more with your lies of what I have said?

  12. #402 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    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.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    jimmymccready (07-20-2019)

  14. #403 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    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.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    domer76 (07-20-2019), jimmymccready (07-20-2019)

  16. #404 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  17. #405 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to jimmymccready For This Post:

    Into the Night (07-21-2019)

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 canceled.2021.3 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, 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
  •