Banned From Youtube Tucker Carlson Questions Vaccine Safety

**Into the Night** · 05-09-2021, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Djinn

Do they continued to be "unconstitutional" once they've been upheld by the Supreme Court? If so, what do you consider the "ultimate" litmus test of what is, and is not constitutional?

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, or to interpret the Constitution, or to destroy the Constitution.
Only the owners of the Constitution, namely the States, have that authority.

**Djinn** · 05-09-2021, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Into the Night

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, or to interpret the Constitution, or to destroy the Constitution.
Only the owners of the Constitution, namely the States, have that authority.

You are mistaken - the Supreme Court is fully empowered when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

Source - The Supreme Court

**Son of the Revolution** · 05-09-2021, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Into the Night

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, or to interpret the Constitution, or to destroy the Constitution.
Only the owners of the Constitution, namely the States, have that authority.

WOW, you need to go back and take a civics class

**Joh17** · 05-09-2021, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Trumpet

Maybe if youtube banned Tucker Carlson, it was because Carson was spreading disinformation.

I know that these so called vaccines ARE dangerous because i am told spiritually. Dont know which ones though.

**Micawber** · 05-09-2021, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Joh17

I know that these so called vaccines ARE dangerous because i am told spiritually. Dont know which ones though.

I can't yet determine if you are a Trumptard or if you are mocking.

**Joh17** · 05-09-2021, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Micawber

I can't yet determine if you are a Trumptard or if you are mocking.

Neither one honestly.

**Trumpet** · 05-09-2021, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Micawber

I can't yet determine if you are a Trumptard or if you are mocking.

I was wondering the same thing.

**Into the Night** · 05-09-2021, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Djinn

You are mistaken - the Supreme Court is fully empowered when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

Source - The Supreme Court

Not according to the Constitution of the United States. See Article III. False authority fallacy. The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

**Into the Night** · 05-09-2021, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Son of the Revolution

WOW, you need to go back and take a civics class

False authority fallacy. The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

**AProudLefty** · 05-09-2021, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Into the Night

??? I never made any type of reasoning like that! You are hallucinating.

Okay then explain what you meant by your statement: "Such 'laws' are unconstitutional."

**Djinn** · 05-10-2021, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Into the Night

Not according to the Constitution of the United States. See Article III. False authority fallacy. The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

The purpose of judges (in general) is to serve as arbiters of the law. That means they are responsible for interpreting the law. If there was no need for legal interpretation, there would be no need for judges. The Supreme Court is no different.

**Nordberg** · 05-10-2021, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Into the Night

False authority fallacy. The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

The constitution is a document. It is an authority on nothing. The Supremes decide what the document means.

**Into the Night** · 05-10-2021, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by AProudLefty

Okay then explain what you meant by your statement: "Such 'laws' are unconstitutional."

Already did. RQAA.

**Into the Night** · 05-10-2021, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Djinn

The purpose of judges (in general) is to serve as arbiters of the law. That means they are responsible for interpreting the law. If there was no need for legal interpretation, there would be no need for judges. The Supreme Court is no different.

No judge has authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States.
No State judge has authority to interpret the constitution of their State nor the Constitution of the United States.

You really should read those documents for once.