SCOTUs has another gun case, and it should be interesting

[Uncensored2008]

No, STY, he doesn't.

You're stuck in some sort of loop/bubble hybrid
where Jesus,
this time taking the form of our "Founders,"
formulated the Republican agenda,
called it the "Constitution,"
and it's not to be questioned.

I don't blame you, STY.
This is that of which you're capable.
How can that be your fault?

Nicky, you've clearly had enough to drink for one day.

Seriously dude...

 

[Into the Night]

Who's "you?"

Also, if one can't change the Constitution, one can ignore it instead.
The Constitution is what--a few sheets of parchment?
What defense does dried up parchment have for itself?

The judicial branch can interpret as it sees fit,
the executive branch can enforce as it sees fit,
but old paper can't do jack shit.

YOU is you.

I already know you discard the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Forget it, he, actually most of the them, have little understanding of the Constitution, all you get out of them is the same inane strict constructionist view that was antiquated shortly after it was written when the actual operation of governing became reality

Denying the Constitution as you do is not 'understanding' it. It is DISCARDING it!

 

[Into the Night]

No, STY, he doesn't.

You're stuck in some sort of loop/bubble hybrid
where Jesus,
this time taking the form of our "Founders,"
formulated the Republican agenda,
called it the "Constitution,"
and it's not to be questioned.

I don't blame you, STY.
This is that of which you're capable.
How can that be your fault?

I already know you discard the Constitution.

 

[archives]

As I previously stated, we the people have many options for reigning in a government that steps outside of it's limitations. impeachment, recalls, and best of all, jury nullification.

Wait a minute, that wasn’t your point, rather that only the people can interpret the Constitution, which basically means anything anyone in the Government wants to do something relating to the Constitution they have to ask for the peoples interpretation first, it is not only an inane idea but impossible

And secondly, the people can’t impeach anyone, plus, recalls, referendums, and recall are only allowed in roughly eighteen out of fifty States

 

[NiftyNiblick]

As I previously stated, we the people have many options for reigning in a government that steps outside of it's limitations. impeachment, recalls, and best of all, jury nullification.

I have personally witnessed plenty of imbeciles serving on juries if that's what you mean.

They were typically far more egregious than the defendants.

 

[archives]

he absolutely does. so do you. the constitution was created to limit the government, not the people. you and archives want to use it to control and regulate the people, which is the exact opposite of the founders.

“regulate people,” another cliche individuals as “stone” employ nearly as often as they do “freedom,” says little

The Constitution was written to set up the framework of the new Government, if it was to stop “regulating people” they would have stuck with their Confederation model that already existed. The Bill of Rights was the addendum added to insure individual rights, and the biggest irony is that nearly immediately after he took office Washingtonian, with the support of the Founders, increased the power of the Government that “stone” tells us the Constitution was written so the Government couldn’t “regulate people,” must be George didn’t get the memo

 

[archives]

The Constitution authorizes Congress to purchase land.
It does NOT allow the Supreme Court to usurp authority.

Show us where in the Constitution it says the Chief Executive of the Government can purchase land from foreign governments

And that this is the last we’ll see “pidgin” for awhile till he stops back to deflect with his Google list of fallacies bullshit

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Ah, Scalia is the one who set the precedent, employing his sophomoric Originalism. Thomas used that precedent in Bruen, and every gun case now has to weigh Scalia’s precedent in any decision, Scalia is dead, but his legacy remains, and you thought you were witty

don't be silly......I KNOW I am witty.......

 

[archives]

don't be silly......I KNOW I am witty.......

And you also thought you were correct, so, so much for what you think

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wait a minute, that wasn’t your point, rather that only the people can interpret the Constitution, which basically means anything anyone in the Government wants to do something relating to the Constitution they have to ask for the peoples interpretation first, it is not only an inane idea but impossible

for someone who claims to be so fucking smart, you really are a dumbshit. what you claim I said is not even close to what I actually stated.

And secondly, the people can’t impeach anyone, plus, recalls, referendums, and recall are only allowed in roughly eighteen out of fifty States

I gave only a few options, and yes the people can impeach if a majority demand that of their elected reps.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I have personally witnessed plenty of imbeciles serving on juries if that's what you mean.

They were typically far more egregious than the defendants.

maybe you can have a cigar if you can tell us why that is............hint: it has to do with the government NOT wanting smart people on juries.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

“regulate people,” another cliche individuals as “stone” employ nearly as often as they do “freedom,” says little

The Constitution was written to set up the framework of the new Government, if it was to stop “regulating people” they would have stuck with their Confederation model that already existed. The Bill of Rights was the addendum added to insure individual rights, and the biggest irony is that nearly immediately after he took office Washingtonian, with the support of the Founders, increased the power of the Government that “stone” tells us the Constitution was written so the Government couldn’t “regulate people,” must be George didn’t get the memo

you really are just a dumbass masquerading as someone who thinks they are smart.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

maybe you can have a cigar if you can tell us why that is............hint: it has to do with the government NOT wanting smart people on juries.

Anybody with any initiative at all can get off jury duty pretty easily if that's to what you refer.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And you also thought you were correct, so, so much for what you think

so I scored twice......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

you really are just a dumbass masquerading as someone who thinks they are smart.

is it masquerading if he doesn't bother to dress the part?......

 

[Lionfish]

 

[QP!]

Wonders if Lyingfish is so stupid he does not know that Dealerships actually do background checks on everyone buying cars, unless you are spending less than 10k and paying with cash to some dirt lot.

but doesn't wonder long as we all know that answer is 'Yes'.

 

[Lionfish]

Wonders if Lyingfish is so stupid he does not know that Dealerships actually do background checks on everyone buying cars, unless you are spending less than 10k and paying with cash to some dirt lot.

but doesn't wonder long as we all know that answer is 'Yes'.

OPeeeeeeeee, Derp, derp, derp! You might be correct, but I have never financed a vehicle so the transaction takes but minutes. BTW, You should check your sentence structure. Derp, Derp, Derp!