texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

[Into the Night]

Thanks for confirming your multiple ass kickings.

Where did I claim a right, stupid shit? I merely outed you on your idiotic claim that “vehicles cannot be necessary” in modern societies.

Tell us again, Einstooge. How does your supermarket get the food that you purchase? Horse and buggy?

Forum idiot.

Answer his question, dumbass. Do you have a right to drive these vehicles?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If you're entering a chain restaurant with a long gun strapped to your body, you are doing so because you know it's 'likely to alarm' people who don't share your delusions.

Wanna go hunting? Go hunting.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH; so if a bunch of young men walk in to a resturant and their pants are sagging, they're doing it because they know it's "likely to alarm" people.

YEAH, let's go down this slippery slope.

 

[archives]

They do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution.

So they have been doing it illegally for the last two hundred plus years?

(Do you think you can break that down by articles and prepositions to muddle and avoid the question?)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Answer his question, dumbass. Do you have a right to drive these vehicles?

he'll refuse to answer that, as he has in the past. his excuse will be nothing but are they necessary, not that there's a right.

 

[Into the Night]

Why do police need guns? What right under the Constitution gives them privilege to carry a gun?

Not a privilege. A right. Also a requirement of the job on most forces in the U.S. The Constitution does not grant rights. The right to self defense is inherent. The 2nd amendment simply prohibits governments from messing with it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH; so if a bunch of young men walk in to a resturant and their pants are sagging, they're doing it because they know it's "likely to alarm" people.

YEAH, let's go down this slippery slope.

better yet, what about hoodies???? they are 'likely' to alarm........right?

 

[Into the Night]

All laws are made out of thin air, nature boy

Well...sometimes THICK air, depending how many of the lawmakers are smoking cigars at the time.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So they have been doing it illegally for the last two hundred plus years?

yes they have. it's why judges do everything they can to deter nullification........so they can keep their usurped power

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for confirming your multiple ass kickings.

Where did I claim a right, stupid shit? I merely outed you on your idiotic claim that “vehicles cannot be necessary” in modern societies.

Tell us again, Einstooge. How does your supermarket get the food that you purchase? Horse and buggy?

Forum idiot.

Driving a vehicle is not a right, and yes, some stores DO get their supplies by horse and buggy. Have you forgotten the Amish?

 

[archives]

yes they have. it's why judges do everything they can to deter nullification........so they can keep their usurped power

So you are telling us now the SCOTUS has been acting illegally and unconstitutionally for the last two hundred plus years?

 

[Into the Night]

So they have been doing it illegally for the last two hundred plus years?

They haven't. Compositional error fallacy.

(Do you think you can break that down by articles and prepositions to muddle and avoid the question?)

You want to avoid muddle by introducing muddle????

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Do you really think citizens having guns would prevent tyranny? Through history, that hasn't been the case.
Maybe Madison honestly believed guns would protect us from tyranny, but if so, he was wrong.

Would you like to refer back to 1776, regarding you comment of "Do you really think citizens having guns would prevent tyranny"??

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you are telling us now the SCOTUS has been acting illegally and unconstitutionally for the last two hundred plus years?

of course. so has congress and the executive branch. we haven't had a government that operated within the confines of the constitution since the alien and sedition act came in to effect. its never been corrected because the left and the right are torn between big government to use against their politican enemies and fear of freedom

 

[Lord Yurt]

Fire up another doob, stoner. You’ll think your more intelligent, but the rest of us still recognize you as a fucking brain dead moron.

Go eat a fucking Butterfinger, doper.

Still avoiding my questions you two bit loser.

All you do is insult. You have no actual content regarding any issue being discussed.

I believe such people are called trolls.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Would you like to refer back to 1776, regarding you comment of "Do you really think citizens having guns would prevent tyranny"??

I pointed that out to him. Did you know that France won our independence? we didn't do anything i guess

 

[archives]

They haven't. Compositional error fallacy.

You want to avoid muddle by introducing muddle????

In other words, you can't answer the question, shocking, and that ain't any fallacy

And by the way, emojis, unless you are an adolescent girl, are really really corny

 

[Lord Yurt]

So you are telling us now the SCOTUS has been acting illegally and unconstitutionally for the last two hundred plus years?

There is actually a valid argument for that POV. One that will never win, however, it has been established as a valid argument.

I suggest you start with Marbury v Madison.

I rarely agree with STY, but he knows case law and the Constitution. Educate yourself before you debate him again.

 

[archives]

of course. so has congress and the executive branch. we haven't had a government that operated within the confines of the constitution since the alien and sedition act came in to effect. its never been corrected because the left and the right are torn between big government to use against their politican enemies and fear of freedom

I'd love to see an explanation on that one, tell us, how have all three branches of Gov't have been actively acting illegally since 1798? And provide examples, not just generalizations

 

[Lord Yurt]

I'd love to see an explanation on that one, tell us, how have all three branches of Gov't have been actively acting illegally since 1798? And provide examples, not just generalizations

Are all governments legal?

 

[archives]

There is actually a valid argument for that POV. One that will never win, however, it has been established as a valid argument.

I suggest you start with Marbury v Madison.

I rarely agree with STY, but he knows case law and the Constitution. Educate yourself before you debate him again.

You didn't answer the question, I know what John Marshall did, and I haven't been debating the other guy here since page two, just jumped in when the Constitutional questions arose