Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 203

Thread: Mass Shootings are Good for America

  1. #181 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    8,281
    Thanks
    1,421
    Thanked 2,597 Times in 1,937 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 661 Times in 608 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    Let us count the ways:

    They remind us of the fragility of life

    They are harbingers of population control, one day perhaps to be necessary

    They are other peoples grief

    They show our Second Amendment freedom in action

    They stir angry debate, good for the circulation

    Most of all, they remind the world that Americans who let this kind of thing go on and on have a dangerous loony streak so you better watch out.
    Actually what would be good for America is to finally arrest tRump and his GOPer creeps who conspired with foreign enemies to incite insurrection, conspire to destroy Democracy from within, conspired among his GOPers to covid murder over 500,000 Americans, installed concentration camps in America as a complete violation of all core values of America and U.S. Constitutional law, adding over $8 trillion to the national debt and other high crimes this lawlessly hacked in tRump gutter mob instigated against humanity.

  2. #182 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    Post 97
    "In certain circumstances , I agree, those would be one, however you upon conviction of a felony, cannot be around anyone with a firearm, wives, children, nephews, etc."

    "End of story."

    "Why is it end of story? The Second Amendment should be end of story."

    Even before then and since.
    It is not the end of story. It can be challenged. And the Constitution has the final say.

  3. #183 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    It is not the end of story. It can be challenged. And the Constitution has the final say.
    No, it doesn't, courts have the final say.

    The states, congress and senate have the final say.

    Where did those 27 amendments come from?

  4. #184 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,021
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    No, it doesn't, courts have the final say.

    The states, congress and senate have the final say.

    Where did those 27 amendments come from?
    An amendment must be brought by either 2/3 of both the house and senate or constitutional convention.
    Any amendment, brought by either method MUST be passed by 3/4 of the states before it is added.

    The courts have NO say whatsoever, only both congresses can jointly propose an amendment and the president also has NO say.
    Once amended, the constitution is the law of the land.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  5. #185 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    An amendment must be brought by either 2/3 of both the house and senate or constitutional convention.
    Any amendment, brought by either method MUST be passed by 3/4 of the states before it is added.

    The courts have NO say whatsoever, only both congresses can jointly propose an amendment and the president also has NO say.
    Once amended, the constitution is the law of the land.
    The courts do have a say.
    The constitutionality of what is being proposed, then the lawmakers proceed with an addition, amendment, ratification or repeal.
    NOT the voting.

    The president does NOT have a role in the voting process, he can't veto an amendment, the president does, of course have an opinion but that's it.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to no worries For This Post:

    martin (04-18-2021)

  7. #186 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,021
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    The courts do have a say.
    The constitutionality of what is being proposed, then the lawmakers proceed with an addition, amendment, ratification or repeal.
    NOT the voting.

    The president does NOT have a role in the voting process, he can't veto an amendment, the president does, of course have an opinion but that's it.
    No, the courts have no say in amending the constitution.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  8. #187 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    No, the courts have no say in amending the constitution.
    Trump reading comprehension correspondence course?

    That's what I stated.

    "The constitutionality of what is being proposed, then the lawmakers proceed with an addition, amendment, ratification or repeal.
    NOT the voting".

  9. #188 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    The courts do have a say.
    The constitutionality of what is being proposed, then the lawmakers proceed with an addition, amendment, ratification or repeal.
    NOT the voting.

    The president does NOT have a role in the voting process, he can't veto an amendment, the president does, of course have an opinion but that's it.
    This is logically ridiculous.

  10. #189 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    This is logically ridiculous.
    No, it isn't, who would the lawmaker making a proposal, consult?

    I would think a constitutional lawyer, who then would possibly, consult a judge, that has tried constitution cases.

    "The courts have NO say whatsoever".

    I never said the courts ALWAYS have say, I should have stated they sometimes can.

    Not ALL politicians will have a say in the amendment process, you only need 75% of states and 66% of the congress and senate.

    What if the constitutionality of what is being proposed is challenged?
    Last edited by no worries; 04-18-2021 at 03:12 AM.

  11. #190 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    5,093
    Thanks
    1,079
    Thanked 673 Times in 582 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 28 Times in 25 Posts
    Blog Entries
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    Let us count the ways:

    They remind us of the fragility of life

    They are harbingers of population control, one day perhaps to be necessary

    They are other peoples grief

    They show our Second Amendment freedom in action

    They stir angry debate, good for the circulation

    Most of all, they remind the world that Americans who let this kind of thing go on and on have a dangerous loony streak so you better watch out.
    Mass shootings can also trigger us to make knee-jerk reactions which are not in our best interests.

    In the classic WWII film, "The Dirty Dozen," once Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson start shooting, the Nazis all go to their "safe room" beneath the castle. And the Americans shoot in order to herd the Germans in there behind strong doors where they entrap themselves so the Dirty Dozen can more easily control and then dispatch them.

    @2:07:41

    The Dirty Dozen 1967 HD (War Film) (2:29:37)



    If you've never seen it, this will be a treat for you.

    If you haven't watched it recently, you will enjoy seeing it again.

  12. #191 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,345
    Thanks
    4,240
    Thanked 5,395 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    No, it isn't, who would the lawmaker making a proposal, consult?

    I would think a constitutional lawyer, who then would possibly, consult a judge, that has tried constitution cases.

    "The courts have NO say whatsoever".

    I never said the courts ALWAYS have say, I should have stated they sometimes can.

    Not ALL politicians will have a say in the amendment process, you only need 75% of states and 66% of the congress and senate.

    What if the constitutionality of what is being proposed is challenged?

    The Constitution provides for the methods of amendment. There is no provision for judicial review and it is illogical that there would be. A change in the meaning of The Constitution, which is what amendments do, would be unconstitutional by definition with reference to the original language.

  13. #192 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    The Constitution provides for the methods of amendment. There is no provision for judicial review and it is illogical that there would be. A change in the meaning of The Constitution, which is what amendments do, would be unconstitutional by definition with reference to the original language.
    The Court has at various times considered the validity of constitutional amendments.

    In the Hawke v Smith (1920), for example, the Court upheld Ohio's ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment over objections that the Ohio Constitution provided for a referendum on the issue by voters that might have overridden the Ohio legislature's ratification of the amendment.

    In the National Prohibition Cases (1920), the Court generally upheld the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment, rejecting arguments that a prohibition on the distribution and possession of alcohol was a constitutionally impermissible subject matter for a constitutional amendment.

    Consider the effect of the Twenty-First Amendment repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. In LaRue v California (1972), the Court concludes that the Twenty-First Amendment qualifies the First Amendment, thus allowing states to regulate expression in establishments that serve alcohol, even when such restrictions might violate the First Amendment if applied elsewhere.

    But while the Court may rule on the validity of an amendment, it cannot pass this ruling into law. It will leave Congress the choice on what to do if an amendment is determined invalid or not.

    Which is correct.

    The SC is not changing an amendment, create, overturn one or one or ruling one into law, just validating the constitutionality of it.

    You are correct, an amendment is not subject to judicial review, then again, I never stated that.

  14. #193 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    No, it doesn't, courts have the final say.

    The states, congress and senate have the final say.

    Where did those 27 amendments come from?
    LOL. SCOTUS has the final say?

    I guess the Dred Scott v. Sandford case was never overturned.

    Anyway, no the courts do not have the final say. The Constitution does.

    The SCOTUS had "the final say" on slavery back then.

  15. #194 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,478
    Thanks
    4,410
    Thanked 1,036 Times in 766 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 155 Times in 147 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    LOL. SCOTUS has the final say?

    I guess the Dred Scott v. Sandford case was never overturned.

    Anyway, no the courts do not have the final say. The Constitution does.

    The SCOTUS had "the final say" on slavery back then.
    Never said that, the courts have A SAY, in the constitutionality of an amendment, not whether it should pass or not.

    The courts do, IF it is challenged, never stated SCOTUS, sometimes the lower courts stand, which they did, at the time.

    That was before the civil war. (1857)

    Then it was in 1868 by......................an amendment, the 14th in 1868, which politicians passed, not the courts.

    Which they agreed it was CONSTITUTIONAL.
    Last edited by no worries; 04-18-2021 at 10:46 AM.

  16. #195 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    No, the constitution doesn't have the final say in an amendment.

    The courts do, IF it is challenged, never stated SCOTUS, sometimes the lower courts stand, which they did, at the time.

    That was before the civil war. (1857)

    Then it was in 1868 by......................an amendment, the 14th in 1868, which politicians passed, not the courts.
    The Second Amendment has not been amended.

    Are you telling me that the courts can deny your right to free speech as well?

Similar Threads

  1. Wikipedia says mass shootings in america killed 387 people in 2018. THAT'S NOTHING
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 08-14-2019, 10:28 PM
  2. Map of Mass Shootings
    By Phantasmal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 08:51 AM
  3. How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really?
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-07-2015, 08:56 AM
  4. Mass Shootings
    By ChoppedLiver in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-04-2015, 12:35 AM
  5. 250 Mass Shootings In 260 Days
    By Anti-Party in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-22-2013, 11:36 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
  •