Ya but I mean the Democrats and leftists didn't come out to protest the RNC nearly as much as they are protesting the DNC, the Sanders camp is rightfully pissed and though I doubt they'll vote for Trump they most likely won't be voting for Hillary either.
Anatta .. Are You Ready To Join Our Cause Now?
- Thread starter philly rabbit
- Start date
Ya but I mean the Democrats and leftists didn't come out to protest the RNC nearly as much as they are protesting the DNC, the Sanders camp is rightfully pissed and though I doubt they'll vote for Trump they most likely won't be voting for Hillary either.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Oh, I totally agree with that. Many of them will not vote, vote third party or say piss on it, and vote for Trump.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the original intent of anything in the constitution or bill of rights is easily discernible if only one chooses to read the constitutional debates and papers.
nobody likes cruz enough.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
True to an extent, but there were differences of opinion even back then.
Clearly Mrs Clinton is not anybody's great reformer, though she may yet be pushed towards giving something to ordinary people by the lack of enthusiasm for her on the left of her Party. Anyone voting for Mr Trump, however, will be deliberately voting for the moral and intellectual disintegration of the US, and world-wide contempt.
Not to mention the last time I checked the Constitution was written in English not Swahili. The problem today is total and selective incorporation plus doctrines, the judiciary is not a legislative body.
Has his hopeless corruption been proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt as Hillarys and the DNCs have? I was a Rand Paul and Jeb Bush supporter in the primary and would voted third party were it not for the fact that every vote that isn't Republican is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Last edited:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
My only point was that discerning intent is not a cut and dry enterprise. There were rancorous debates even when the documents were being written.
Even today we could pick sides, just for debate practice, and go for pages debating the founders intent behind the 2nd Amendment.
philly rabbit
Verified User
Well, I could have said Bernie supporters but I didn't think you would mind me using your login.
Bernie's supporters and Trump supporters should unite in order to insure the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the entire Clinton political machine.
Obama is an ideologue but Hillary is a gangster who lies through her teeth. Her and her alleged husband practice gangster-ism and power hungry Hillary will do or say anything in her lust for globalist power.
I saw Bernie's speech last night and this guy has done a complete 360 from what he campaigned about .. anti Hillary / Wall Street to being completely in the tank FOR Hillary. That does not however, include his supporters because they will go on without Bernie and his plastic message regardless of how much they love this guy.
The time is ripe for a unison between both sides with the overriding goal of stopping Hillary.
Who cares? The man is clearly a version of Hitler without the convictions, laughable and alarming by turns.
no problem
Bernie has moved to what he thinks is the lessor of 2 evils. I think Clinton is just plain evil so I won't be going along for that ride
the problem is original intent was used to say "well the Framers were saying this and that" -
whereas if you JUST read and use the text there is no interpretation of intent. It's there or it's not.
that's it. but you are correct stare decisis is also valid ( precedent). It's when there is doubt about precedent; then you go directly back to the text.
at all times the text has to support the interpretation/law
Textualism is a formalist theory of the interpretation of law, holding that a legal text's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
It is the Hillary campaign and the DNC that were proven to be run by Nazis in the WikiLeaks email dissemination, and it's Hillary and the DNC sending out their jack booted thugs to forcefully silence Bernie supporters and squash dissent, we are seeing now a night of the long knives purge of the Democratic Party, remember like Sanders even Rohm heiled his Fuhrer even as he was about to be executed.
Last edited:
Not under selective and total incorporation plus.
Last edited:
that's gibberish
Auto correct it should have read "not under,"
Total Incorporation Plus
Definition
Total Incorporation plus other fundamental rights not expressly granted in the Bill of Rights- Justice Murphy and Rutledge dissenting in Adamson
Selective Incorporation Plus
Definition
Selective Incorporation plus other fundamental rights not expressly granted in the BoR. Justice Goldberg, Warren, Brennan in Griswold
http://www.flashcardmachine.com/american-constitutional-law.html
The court is no longer bound by Case Law or the Constitution, it allows them to legislate from the bench through an insane interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Last edited:
it looks like some kina organizing method for a Constitutional law class.
That's fine for studying case law -but I was speaking more about Constitutional philosophy.
Which is why I've gone back to textualism...the text is always paramount, and cannot be disputed