Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 134

Thread: Illinois county declares itself a SANCTUARY COUNTY for gun owners - HAHAHA

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    the court USURPING power never prescribed to them does NOT mean that they can now do shit about the constitution. The US Constitution belongs to we the people, not the courts

    "An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance."
    -Theophilus Parsons, January 23, 1788
    Neither were the people given the power to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution only gave the people the power to elect members of the House. There was no attempt to reverse Marbury through constitutional amendment. Judicial review existed in some of the colonies.

    And, in Federalist No. 78 Hamilton says this about the courts:

    "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing".

    "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers View Post
    HAHAHA. Yes you fool. We all know that the courts GRANTED themselves the power to repeal laws by saying they are unconstitutional. But the constitution itself says they don't have that power. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." Writing and repealing laws are legislative functions.
    In other words, Congress has the power to pass any law it chooses if it decides it is constitutional?

    When D. C. banned handguns and the Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional, you opposed the court's power to do so? And, you favored the power of D. C. (through Congress) to ban handguns because they thought it was constitutional?

  3. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Why shouldn't an ex convict be allowed to vote? The right to vote has nothing to do with any crime that may have been committed.
    To be a modern liberal, is top be a hypocrite.
    Every life matters

  4. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    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 Flash View Post
    Neither were the people given the power to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution only gave the people the power to elect members of the House. There was no attempt to reverse Marbury through constitutional amendment. Judicial review existed in some of the colonies.
    how do you say that with a straight face? are you that ignorant on the constitution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And, in Federalist No. 78 Hamilton says this about the courts:

    "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing".
    and if the courts were still independent, this might have meaning. they aren't, so it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
    it is the height of ignorance to believe that we the people would write a constitution, debate it's meaning for years before we ratified it, so we would know EXACTLY what it meant, then turn it over to part of the new central government that we the people wanted to restrict in it's list of powers for interpretation. THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE!!!!!!
    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.

  5. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,965
    Thanks
    12,109
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Text Drivers are Killers View Post
    Judicial power does NOT include power to repeal laws and that's what courts do when they say a law is unconstitutional. Writing laws and repealing laws is a legislative function.
    THINK
    Wrong again, moron.

  6. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,965
    Thanks
    12,109
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I concede nothing accept that you as usual are incorrect. Re read my post until you understand it
    Still haven’t found that citation, have you?

    Concession noted.

  7. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    To be a modern liberal, is top be a hypocrite.
    Once again, and again you FAIL to answer a simple question. Obviously you have no answer, not even a reasonable explanation.

  8. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    already answered by me earlier.
    Asusual you haven't answered shit, just a simple explanation will do.

  9. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    how do you say that with a straight face? are you that ignorant on the constitution?

    and if the courts were still independent, this might have meaning. they aren't, so it doesn't.

    it is the height of ignorance to believe that we the people would write a constitution, debate it's meaning for years before we ratified it, so we would know EXACTLY what it meant, then turn it over to part of the new central government that we the people wanted to restrict in it's list of powers for interpretation. THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE!!!!!!
    The very men who wrote the Constitution created a national bank for which they had no specific constitutional authority and filled the courts with Federalists who favored a strong central government and issued the Marbury decision.

    You say Hamilton's statement that is it the court's role to declare all acts contrary to the Constitution void might have some meaning if the courts were still independent. That shows us Hamilton (at least) believed it was the role of the courts to interpret the Constitution which you deny.

    Without that power, Congress and the executive would be free to pass any law or take any action they choose if they deem it constitutional. And no, jury nullification cannot fix that problem. It would only apply to lawsuits or criminal prosecutions. If Congress voted to nationalize the oil industry (or some other unconstitutional action) there would be no jury involved. The actions of Obama and Trump regarding immigration laws that were struck down in the courts would involve no jury.

    And we never determined exactly what the Constitution meant. Those men who wrote it did not even agree as to the meaning of all the provisions.

    I will not be as rude as you and call you ignorant, but your knowledge of constitutional law is not correct.

  10. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    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 floridafan View Post
    Asusual you haven't answered shit, just a simple explanation will do.
    fine, i'll recap. Once a person is released from prison, his/her time and punishment has been served and he/she should have all their rights restored, including voting, gun ownership, etc.
    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.

  11. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    28,409
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4,205 Times in 3,426 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,204 Times in 1,881 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    In other words, Congress has the power to pass any law it chooses if it decides it is constitutional?
    Yes. And if the public dislikes the law, we can vote out the congressmen. But when federal judges write laws, the public can do nothing. They serve for life. THINK
    Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals put together!

    THE BIG LIE - Blacks and whites are different physically but identical mentally!

    There is no way 81 million americans voted for a man they know is a child molester w dementia. Impeach Joe the Pedophile Vegetable (JPV)

  12. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    fine, i'll recap. Once a person is released from prison, his/her time and punishment has been served and he/she should have all their rights restored, including voting, gun ownership, etc.
    What in the first place does voting rights have to do with being in jail. All registered citizens have the right to vote regardless of where they are.

  13. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    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 Flash View Post
    The very men who wrote the Constitution created a national bank for which they had no specific constitutional authority and filled the courts with Federalists who favored a strong central government and issued the Marbury decision.

    You say Hamilton's statement that is it the court's role to declare all acts contrary to the Constitution void might have some meaning if the courts were still independent. That shows us Hamilton (at least) believed it was the role of the courts to interpret the Constitution which you deny.

    Without that power, Congress and the executive would be free to pass any law or take any action they choose if they deem it constitutional. And no, jury nullification cannot fix that problem. It would only apply to lawsuits or criminal prosecutions. If Congress voted to nationalize the oil industry (or some other unconstitutional action) there would be no jury involved. The actions of Obama and Trump regarding immigration laws that were struck down in the courts would involve no jury.

    And we never determined exactly what the Constitution meant. Those men who wrote it did not even agree as to the meaning of all the provisions.

    I will not be as rude as you and call you ignorant, but your knowledge of constitutional law is not correct.
    the purview of the courts is simply to judge cases based upon the laws and the constitutions plain text. there is no interpretation, because interpretation allows personal viewpoints and ideologies to influence decisions that may run counter to the constitution that WE THE PEOPLE wrote.

    WE THE PEOPLE did indeed determine what the constitution meant. there were countless debates, recorded minutes, and commentaries that explained the constitution very clearly before it was ratified.
    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.

  14. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    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 floridafan View Post
    What in the first place does voting rights have to do with being in jail. All registered citizens have the right to vote regardless of where they are.
    as it stands right now, does a ex convicted felon have the right to vote?
    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.

  15. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    as it stands right now, does a ex convicted felon have the right to vote?
    depends on the state

Similar Threads

  1. County Ends ‘Sanctuary’ Policy Before Trump Inauguration
    By OldMercsRule in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-28-2016, 11:41 AM
  2. APP - Shutdown and my county
    By tekkychick in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-04-2013, 05:26 PM
  3. APP - sb county deferred maintenance now up to $300,000,000 how much is yours
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-30-2013, 01:00 AM
  4. Attn: Residents of King County, WA
    By Minister of Truth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 12:09 AM
  5. I may be our next County Commissioner!
    By Damocles in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-11-2007, 01:00 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
  •