It is not a contradiction for Republicans to confirm Ginsberg's replacement

[CFM]

Excuse the question, but how old are you?

Old enough to teach a dumbass like you multiple lessons.

Old enough to know how the Constitution works based on what's written in it not what I want it to say.

Are you claiming that the Constitution doesn't use the concept of reserved powers to the States if authority over certain items aren't delegated to the federal government? Try reading the 10th amendment. I know you hate it because you want the federal government to have extensive powers. That's not how it was intended. However, there is a way for you to get that as long as you go through the process in Article V.

[martin]

Old enough to teach a dumbass like you multiple lessons.

Old enough to know how the Constitution works based on what's written in it not what I want it to say.

Are you claiming that the Constitution doesn't use the concept of reserved powers to the States if authority over certain items aren't delegated to the federal government? Try reading the 10th amendment. I know you hate it because you want the federal government to have extensive powers. That's not how it was intended. However, there is a way for you to get that as long as you go through the process in Article V.

The problem you are having is trying to force specificity on language the Framers intentionally left vague but subject to certain underlying principles that are spelled out, as in the Bill of Rights which followed the main document. Local police powers, roads and education are examples of powers considered reserved to the states unlike the Interstate Highway System mentioned above which has a clear national purpose. Under your reasoning I-95 is either Unconstitutional or the Framers anticipated it.

[CFM]

The problem you are having is trying to force specificity on language the Framers intentionally left vague but subject to certain underlying principles that are spelled out, as in the Bill of Rights which followed the main document. Local police powers, roads and education are examples of powers considered reserved to the states unlike the Interstate Highway System mentioned above which has a clear national purpose. Under your reasoning I-95 is either Unconstitutional or the Framers anticipated it.

The 10th amendment is very specific as to what level of government has the authority to deal with things I mentioned. Nothing vague about it. The Bill of Rights, because they were done through amendment, makes them no less a part of the Constitution as any of the other 17 after them.

Using my faultless logic, I-95 is constitutional but the federal government creating a system of national healthcare would not. National defense is a federal government power and one of the five purposes of the interstate system as created by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, along with safety, congestion, courts, and the economy, was defense. A national healthcare system, nothing for which Article I grants Congress authority, belongs to the States if they choose to it for their State. That's why, while I oppose a government run healthcare system, what Romney did is Massachusetts for Massachusetts only, was Constitutional based on what's WRITTEN in the Constitution. I don't have to personally like it to accept that something like that was allowed. What you're expecting people to accept is things for which no authority exists because you want it to.

[TexanManWithPlans]

You claim to believe in it but piss your pants when given a lesson about it.

You go by some vague interpretation about what something means and I apply what's in black and white.

If those things listed aren't delegated to the federal government, they are RESERVED to the States. Do you know what reserved means or do you need a lesson in that, too?

You don't get to call your interpretation "black and white." If everything were "black and white," we wouldn't have a Supreme Court to interpret. We wouldn't have debates among legal scholars. You're extraordinarily arrogant and stupid, which is a bad combination for society.

[artichoke]

You're moving further right every election cycle.

blatant lie.jpeg

We stand for literally the exact same things as always. Free markets, limited government, following the Constitution, etc.

Meanwhile...

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like slavery reparations 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like mob assaults, arson, secession, anarchy, and murder 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like infanticide 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like boys playing in girls' sports 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like terrorists, felons, and illegal immigrants voting 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like grown men using the bathroom and showering with little girls 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like abolishing ICE, police, and prisons 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like making taxpayers bail out irresponsible student loans 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like stacking SCOTUS and overthrowing the Electoral College 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like the Green New Deal 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

-Did Democrats stand for asinine lunatic extremism like throwing violent tantrums against flags and monuments 5 years ago like they do now? Or is that a RECENT development?

Projection.jpg

Sorry, but the Democratic Party is most faithful to the US Constitution.

By opposing free speech, free religious exercise, freedom of the press, gun rights, state sovereignty, due process, and every other part of the Bill of Rights (while inventing bogus rights never authorized or intended out of thin air at every turn)?



Or by literally reversing everything that was put in place (95% of the power was supposed to stay at the state and local level where the individual has maximum control...you fight for the exact opposite of that).

Nobody takes you guys seriously.

Say the communist lunatics burning down the country and declaring secession.

systematic oppression.jpg

[artichoke]

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Amy Coney Barrett.