Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

Flash said:
The 2nd does not allow or prohibit those weapons, that is the function of state and federal legislation. They are restricted or prohibited in some states.
Click to expand...

WRONG. The 2nd amendment is binding upon the States. It allows any weapon. It does not specify a weapon by type.
 
Abatis said:
What's "fake" is the particular leftist interpretation of the Constitution at issue.

Whether it is the emoluments clause or the commerce clause or the general welfare clause or their ignoring that the Constitution establishes a republic, not a democracy (and what that both demands and excludes) and of course, the 2nd Amendment, one can be sure that whatever conclusion a leftist comes to about the US Constitution, it is a misrepresentation and an outright attempt to twist the Constitution into doing what it expressly forbids.

Liberals, by their very nature find any constitution an anathema to their fluid, evolving "values", thus it must be stomped out, violated, dismissed and discarded.

.
Click to expand...

The Dems are whole hog into defending the Constitution. It is Trump who wipes his feet with it. Rightys divert. like you are doing. The problem is Trump was extorting Ukraine for campaign helpin the next election He wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens. In return, he would release the military aid that the House had passed for their defense. This is not in the debate anymore, assuming it was. The witnesses are making it clear that is exactly what he did. He also was running a shadow state department with Rudy in charge. He actually ordered the ambassadors around. Rudy did not have a state dept position and had no authority. He was not nominated for a spot or approved by the Senate.
This whole Trump twisted plot stinks and was illegal.
 
LV426 said:
They actually hate the Constitution, which is why they tried to create their own country with their own Constitution in the 1860's.

They lost.
Click to expand...

You mean like finding fake words like "abortion", "food stamps", "healthcare", etc. when they aren't in the Constitution.
 
10 going on 11 is wrong

For instance, the bill of rights isn't fake - but it was also completely unnecessary.

stupid people - much like 10 going on 11 never could grasp the explicit powers - largely because their reading comprehension is so bad

the op is just like that. a stupid person - or a child (who also happens to be stupid)
 
Gonzomin said:
The Dems are whole hog into defending the Constitution. ...............................
Click to expand...

That is a massive lie. They are bent on destroying the Constitution and making a mockery of our institutions. Have you always been mentally retarded? Or do you like acting like one here?
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. The 14th changed nothing. It has always been binding upon the States.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
 
Abatis said:
What's "fake" is the particular leftist interpretation of the Constitution at issue.

Whether it is the emoluments clause or the commerce clause or the general welfare clause or their ignoring that the Constitution establishes a republic, not a democracy (and what that both demands and excludes) and of course, the 2nd Amendment, one can be sure that whatever conclusion a leftist comes to about the US Constitution, it is a misrepresentation and an outright attempt to twist the Constitution into doing what it expressly forbids.

Liberals, by their very nature find any constitution an anathema to their fluid, evolving "values", thus it must be stomped out, violated, dismissed and discarded.

.
Click to expand...

Awwwwww. Such a cute, lying crybaby! So precious!
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. The 14th changed nothing. The 2nd amendment has always been binding upon the States.
Click to expand...

I see you disappeared after fact correcting

This is really sad - sorry to say.

you claim to be a conservative - but you proved to be completely ignorant of the original intent and understanding of the constitution - which is what I typically see from progressives.
 
Abatis said:
What's "fake" is the particular leftist interpretation of the Constitution at issue.

Whether it is the emoluments clause or the commerce clause or the general welfare clause or their ignoring that the Constitution establishes a republic, not a democracy (and what that both demands and excludes) and of course, the 2nd Amendment, one can be sure that whatever conclusion a leftist comes to about the US Constitution, it is a misrepresentation and an outright attempt to twist the Constitution into doing what it expressly forbids.

Liberals, by their very nature find any constitution an anathema to their fluid, evolving "values", thus it must be stomped out, violated, dismissed and discarded.

.
Click to expand...

How about standing armies?

You think our occupying 120+ nations around the globe is constitutional? You likely supported the so called Patriot Act for spying on citizens too.


I see both parties running rough shod over this document when it is political expedient for them to do so.
 
zymurgy said:
You think our occupying 120+ nations around the globe is constitutional?
Click to expand...

We are occupying 120+ countries???? Your hyperbole is getting the best of your facts. Look up the definition of occupation before you erupt with such blatant falsehoods. :rolleyes:

zymurgy said:
You likely supported the so called Patriot Act for spying on citizens too.
Click to expand...

I see you have alrready forgotten what happened on 9-11 2001.

:smh:

zymurgy said:
I see both parties running rough shod over this document when it is political expedient for them to do so.
Click to expand...

There may be a tiny tinge of truth to this statement. But the Republicans run roughshod over it to protect American lives. Democrats do it for pure political power and destroying American lives. ;)
 
Into the Night said:
It is legal to own rocket launchers. I have some stored away in my home right now.
The States have the right to self defense. They use militias for that.
The people have the right to self defense. They use their own weapons for that.

Both rights are inherent. They do not come from a piece of paper. What the piece of paper does is clearly tell the government HANDS OFF! The 2nd amendment does not grant any right. It simply clarifies a limit upon the federal government that was already there. It also places a binding law upon the States.
Click to expand...

You must be really upset about the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 keeping you from owning a fully auto weapon made after 1986... Why haven't you risen up?
 
zymurgy said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia summarily discarded. You can't use it as a reference with me.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution. The 2nd amendment was binding to the States from the beginning. The 14th amendment changed nothing.

The 2nd amendment does not have the word 'gun' in it. It does not specify any weapon by type. This means it is legal to have any weapon...gun, sword, knife, bomb, rocket, dart, anything. The right to self defense is inherent. It does not come from the Constitution. The Constitution directs both the Federal government and the State governments to not interfere with this right. If they do so, they leave themselves open to destruction by those same weapons. There is simply no authority ever given to the federal government to limit or ban any weapon. The States are also prohibited from passing any such law. Indeed, they echo the 2nd amendment in their own State constitutions. They all recognize that the people have the right to be armed as part of their inherent right of self defense.
 
zymurgy said:
I see you disappeared after fact correcting
Click to expand...
What fact? I haven't gone anywhere, dumbass.
zymurgy said:
you claim to be a conservative - but you proved to be completely ignorant of the original intent and understanding of the constitution - which is what I typically see from progressives.
Click to expand...
I am a conservative. I support conserving the republic and a republican form of government. There is no 'original intent'. Buzzword fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top