Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 511

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

  1. #496 | 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

    Somalia.

    You can read about Deadwood or San Francisco.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  2. #497 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,025
    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
    Somalia.
    not libertarianism, just a liberals hopeful vision of what they want to believe is 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    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."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

  3. #498 | 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

    Your usual horse shit, when you have nothing to say, StY.

    And you ignored Deadwood and San Francisco.

    In the mining west, compare the mining towns' government to that of the Mormons in Utah. For the first decade, the Mormons had generally let business and the people do as they wish on Main and State Street until about 1860. Terrible environment for civilians, then the city government clamped down and regulated business and society. Much cleaner, much safer, much more sensible.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  4. #499 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,025
    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
    Your usual horse shit, when you have nothing to say, StY.

    And you ignored Deadwood and San Francisco.
    no, the usual horseshit is idiots trying to hold somalia as an example of libertarianism. complete idiocy on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    In the mining west, compare the mining towns' government to that of the Mormons in Utah. For the first decade, the Mormons had generally let business and the people do as they wish on Main and State Street until about 1860. Terrible environment for civilians, then the city government clamped down and regulated business and society. Much cleaner, much safer, much more sensible.
    why are you using the LDS as an example against libertarianism? more idiocy. instead of using the BS talking points for hating freedom, go and actually learn 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

  5. #500 | 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

    IOW, StY has nothing, other than the usual assertion that libertarianism is "good."

    It's not.

    The LDS tried libertarianism in the first decade and it endangered the community
    Last edited by jimmymccready; 07-22-2019 at 06:48 AM.
    This will be the election map for 2020.

  6. #501 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,025
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    the thing that's total horseshit is thinking that only government can guarantee freedom LOL

    how'd that work for the founders?
    "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

  7. #502 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It does not usurp authority,
    Lie. You have put yourself in another paradox. You are being irrational now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    it performs the function of interpreting the document which is often written in broad and vague terms.
    It does not have authority to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The Constitution obviously does not interpret itself or there would not be legal debates over these issues.
    It does not need 'interpretation'. It is plainly written.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    For example, when you claim the power to make laws regarding naturalization include the power over immigration, that is not in the Constitution.
    Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are discovering it in some broader definition of the document; in other words, you are changing what the Constitution actually says and giving it greater power then the specific wording.
    No. YOU are attempting to redefine what 'naturalization' means.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is why it requires court interpretation.
    The court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

  8. #503 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is at least as accurate as the claim that only liberal or only conservative policies endanger us.

    It is impossible for libertarian policies to endanger us because they never get anything passed.
    But they have.

    Random police roadblocks are a thing of the past in some States.
    Cannabis is legal now in some States.
    There is no active Selective Service system anymore.
    There are now some States that have no permit or regulation required to carry a gun, even concealed.

  9. #504 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 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.
    Libertarians do not seek to dominate.

  10. #505 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Which means the legislative and executive branches are free to take any actions they choose because there is no check on their constitutional powers.
    No, it doesn't mean that. The court DOES have authority over laws passed by Congress.

  11. #506 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Libertarianism does not seek to dominate anybody. They seek the greatest amount of economic and social freedom. Do the social elements liberals share with libertarians seek to dominate the weak?

    Communist theory also does not seek to dominate the weak. But it has always existed in nations with authoritarian political cultures and never reached its utopian goals.
    Communism DOES seek to dominate the weak. It can only exist by stealing wealth. It can only be implemented by oligarchy or dictatorship. The same is true of fascism (the other form of socialism).

  12. #507 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 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.
    WRONG. It means the court is interpreting the law, not the Constitution. The law MUST conform to the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That does not solve the problem of presidential actions
    Yes it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    and legislative laws that do not involve cases brought before the courts.
    Yes it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If the president issued an unconstitutional executive order or Congress passed an unconstitutional governmental program (ACC) there are no cases brought to the courts.
    Lie. Yes there are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The only cases would be suits challenging the constitutionality of those acts and that involves court interpretation of the Constitution.
    No. It involves interpreting the law being challenged only. The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

  13. #508 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    This case is about the vagueness of the information, not the substantive right.
    It is about the substantive right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Setting aside that you are clearly not qualified to talk about case law, let's cut to the chase,
    Anyone is qualified to talk about case law. YOU don't get to decide who can talk about case law.
    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?
    Carrying a weapon is not brandishing it. Carrying a sword is not brandishing it.
    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?
    That is brandishing. You might very well get shot. It is a lethal threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Is that alarming to you?
    Yes. It is an immediate lethal threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    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?
    Not a problem.
    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?
    Only because it is careless handling of the weapon.
    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.
    No. The right of self defense is inherent.

  14. #509 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That would assume Congress opposes that executive order
    Yes it would. Good for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    or the president opposes the legislation (which he could have vetoed).
    Yes it would. Good for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    No, he is not. It's called a 'veto'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If Congress and the president support those acts then there is no check on their constitutionality.
    Yes there is. The States themselves, or the people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    There is much in the Constitution that is vague
    Nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    or does not cover modern events
    Yes it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    and must be interpreted by the courts.
    The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Does "necessary and proper" mean absolutely necessary or just convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress?
    Context please. Void argument fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree on its meaning in the creation of a national bank.
    Jefferson is correct on that matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Thus, the courts had to interpret that provision that determined the constitutionality of the bank.
    The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You seemed willing to ignore the president's order to faithfully execute the laws
    ...?
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    --does that mean the president has a choice whether to enforce a law.
    To a certain degree, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If so, the Constitution's provision to execute the laws is not actually a requirement.
    It is. That is up to the States to decide if he is or is not, or to the people.

  15. #510 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,055
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 945 Times in 841 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 41 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    IOW, StY has nothing, other than the usual assertion that libertarianism is "good."

    It's not.

    The LDS tried libertarianism in the first decade and it endangered the community
    Lie.

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
  •