Русский (10-22-2017)
I'm sorry I did not specifically point out that the federal government has enacted unconstitutional law, I was just speaking of what the law is in the context of evince's posts. God knows I didn't want to complicate things with her saying the law was actually invalid.
Many, many challenges to unconstitutional laws are making their way through the courts. It takes time to pump out the bilges and get the government properly righted on its keel.
Русский (10-22-2017)
the main problem with most libs and cons is that they feel they have to rely upon supreme court decisions as to what the constitution allows and doesn't allow. It shows an inability to think for themselves and that the constitution and the 'law' is just way too difficult and complex for the common person to understand, so courts, lawyers, and judges are absolutely necessary to tell us what they all mean. Until there comes an issue that they've been led to believe they must support, like abortion or guns, then they come off like con law experts and that those judges don't know shit.
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.
domer 76 is correct that the idea of natural law comes from people, not a superstitious cloud guy that doesn't exist. Abatis is a moron. He is only armed with a tiny speck of misinformation, but in the hands of a doofus, the ignorance is magnified. If natural law does not depend upon a deity, then it comes from an abstract idea of men, therefore it does not matter whether the right to keep and bear arms
is of constitutional origin or not. It is still a human abstraction made into social contract, not a sacrament. It can be erased by a 2/3 majority just as it was written, and having done so, can be enforced by violence, as was done with cavemen, Hammurabi , Napoleon or the Dumpstocity himself.
Violence is not itself a law or a right. THINK!
Believing a court decision is wrong is one thing, misrepresenting an entire branch of precedent like anti-gunners do with the 2nd Amendment is quite another, e.g., Micawber:
Yeah, right . . .
I don't fault anyone for having an informed opinion about the law or the Constitution (that's what makes for good debate) but to deny what is in plain English just to maintain / advance / protect a political agenda is bullshit and should be called-out and rebutted and destroyed whenever it is seen.
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.
the funny part of all this is you've skirted around and completely avoided answering any questions about the constitution, rights, and specific items about them, instead relying on your only talking point which is all rights are alienable...........
so at least you have that going for you
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.
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.
Where does any philosophy come from?
The debate between Bodin / Filmer and Locke / Sidney was whether the king had a "divine right" to rule or humans had a inherent right to choose their own government. The founders / framers chose Locke and Sidney's "natural rights" theory and Jefferson embraced that and it became the basis for telling the king to fuck off and killing a shit-ton of redcoats. The Constitution that followed bound the US government to treat the rights of the citizen as inherent and pre-existing the Constitution thus not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution.
Saying it is one thing, proving it is quite another.
Micawber getting all Tasmanian Devilish. Ooooohh, stand back!
Why is philosophy enforced by social contract such a hard concept for you to understand?
There are quite a few problems with your assessment; some make for good debate. I guess we'll never know.
Having the right to consent to be governed means "We the People" also retain the right to rescind our consent to be governed.
That's the "violence" the 2nd Amendment secures.
I guess you are going to chicken out on a one on one, supported, insult-free, debate . . .
I'm never surprised by guys like you.
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
A simple question to the evince's, domer76's and Micawber's of the board:
If the concept of inherent and unenumerated rights is mystical bullshit believed only by gun crazy fools and right-wing idiots, how and why is the recognition and protection of the right to privacy and the derivative rights to abortion etc., based upon it?
Bookmarks