Man gets 15 months in prison for joke post on Facebook

Dutch Uncle said:
I believe fairness is part of the intent of the Constitution.

Do you believe the same way?
Click to expand...

Sure, fair in terms of legal equality. The Constitution sets up a political system in which the winner has a lot of power advantages over the loser. That is not always fair but is the function of elections.

Being fair in redistricting is a more complicated political and legal question. Should districts be drawn on the basis of race to give more minority representation? That is being fair to minorities but violates a basic constitutional principle.

Americans want their side to win political power but are then squeamish when the winner exercises that power.

What constitutes fair redistricting to you?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's pretty basic, dude.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Article III Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Besides you, who else is "us"? I'm curious. I understand if you are too afraid to reply.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You moron. Since when does "judicial power" include deciding if a law is constitutional??? That's the issue and you are skirting it.

BTW - it can be argued that the 10A gives STATES the power to decide if a law is constitutional or not.
 
Dirt McGirt said:
In the federalist papers and some of Thomas Jefferson’s plans for the courts it’s clear that they all wanted some form of what we call judicial review today, but there never was a consensus. I don’t know if it was something that the founders felt didn’t need to be in there because it was a no brainer or since they never could reach a consensus they just decided to burn that bridge when they got there, so it wasn’t listed in Article 3 section 2 as a power of the court.
Click to expand...

That's how i see it. The founding fathers never said who should have authority to decide if a law is constitutional or not. I think they realized that whoever had that power would be dictator. So they just left it up to the three branches of govt to somehow work it out. But in 1803 the SC simply ASSERTED that they had the power exclusively and they've had it ever since.
 
AProudLefty said:
Are you okay with someone paying someone with AIDS to lick stuff at a grocery store?
Click to expand...

AIDS is not contagious, but HIV (the virus that can cause AIDS) is. Not everyone who has HIV has AIDS. HIV is not transmitted via licked surfaces.

That being said, I would be against paying anyone to lick things at the grocery store.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
AIDS is not contagious, but HIV (the virus that can cause AIDS) is. Not everyone who has HIV has AIDS. HIV is not transmitted via licked surfaces.

That being said, I would be against paying anyone to lick things at the grocery store.
Click to expand...

Hoax or not, he committed a crime.
 
Flash said:
Sure, fair in terms of legal equality. The Constitution sets up a political system in which the winner has a lot of power advantages over the loser. That is not always fair but is the function of elections.

Being fair in redistricting is a more complicated political and legal question. Should districts be drawn on the basis of race to give more minority representation? That is being fair to minorities but violates a basic constitutional principle.

Americans want their side to win political power but are then squeamish when the winner exercises that power.

What constitutes fair redistricting to you?
Click to expand...

A neutral commission should figure it out.

Our nation, the greatest democracy on the planet, also has one of the lowest voter turnout rates at ~60%.

I think one reason for the low turnout is because voters feel the system is inherently unfair and see no purpose in voting. If voters felt the system was fair and that their vote counted, I think voter turnout would increase.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. You moron. Since when does "judicial power" include deciding if a law is constitutional??? That's the issue and you are skirting it.

BTW - it can be argued that the 10A gives STATES the power to decide if a law is constitutional or not.
Click to expand...
Text Drivers are Killers said:
That's how i see it. The founding fathers never said who should have authority to decide if a law is constitutional or not. I think they realized that whoever had that power would be dictator. So they just left it up to the three branches of govt to somehow work it out. But in 1803 the SC simply ASSERTED that they had the power exclusively and they've had it ever since.
Click to expand...

Jesus fucking Christ, asshole. You're just proving you're insane.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHAHA. All the left ever has is namecalling. Thanks for admitting i'm right.
Click to expand...

Dude, when you lie and deny, it really does prove you are just an insane old man waiting to die. Why don't you call some old friends? You still have some that are alive, right? A niece or nephew? Somebody who gives a shit you're still alive?

I guarantee you that it wouldn't take many phone calls to find out you still have relatives who give a shit about you. Make a phone call. How hard can it be?
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHAHA. More brazen lies from the most brazen liar of JPP. The EMTALA act of 1985 says illegals get free health care at ERs.!!!

As for welfare and voting, federal law says they can't do either but the law is simply ignored.

Illegals do NOT work hard. Most don't even have jobs. They live off crime and welfare. They are bankrupting america and that is the plan of china and russia and iran. Our enemies pay the DNC and RNC to support illegals.
Click to expand...
https://law.justia.com/constitution/arizona/7/2.htm
You are the dumbest most misinformed person on this board.
How is it ignored? I have actually worked in voting. I recognize what the facts are. A person has to register to vote. To qualify, they have to be a CITIZEN.
Do you know how to vote? You go to an assigned precinct. Your name has to appear in the logbook. If not, you are sent away. If it is there, your signature is matched to the one in the book. Only then do you vote. When you are done, the log shows you as voted. Try and vote again and see how that works.
If you are not a citizen, there will be no precinct book with your name in it. You cannot vote.l
We have a great system to ensure election integrity and you do not know enough to question it .
You are such a terrible hater.
 
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
A neutral commission should figure it out.

Our nation, the greatest democracy on the planet, also has one of the lowest voter turnout rates at ~60%.

I think one reason for the low turnout is because voters feel the system is inherently unfair and see no purpose in voting. If voters felt the system was fair and that their vote counted, I think voter turnout would increase.
Click to expand...


I don't think that has been true the last two elections. Voter turnout has been much higher than usual and the two parties think it makes a big difference who is elected. Voter turnout was much higher in the 1880s when party loyalty was more intense.

The negative is the cultural divide and intense hatred between the two sides; the positive is that it increases voter turnout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top