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

[Into the Night]

^There’s the idiot again, thinking he’s the author of the Constitution.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Thank you for raising that point. What the Founders thought then really is immaterial now.

We all know TJ was boinking his slave and Maria Conway in France when the Constitution was being written in the US.

You cannot void the Constitution that way, dumbass.

 

[Phantasmal]

WRONG. The Constitution can ONLY be changed by States and ONLY through a specific means, listed in the Constitution itself.

[FONT=&quot]The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
[/FONT]
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

[Into the Night]

One fucking thing for sure, YOU aren’t.

He never said he was, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

That is immaterial, StY: that was then and this is now. I have no desire to live in the world of 1793.

Since you have no desire to live under the Constitution...leave. No one is stopping you. May I suggest China or Cuba?

Accept some counsel: you are not enlightened, you have no special insight.

He actually read the Constitution. So did I. That's more than what can be said for you.

Instead you are working out inner frustrations because people do not take you seriously. That is not because they are assholes.

Psychoquackery.

 

[Into the Night]

I’m waiting, “vehicles cannot be necessary”. You claim you’re an author of the Constitution. Which part did you write?

Get back to us. We’re all curious.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

There you go again with the nonsense. Taxation is not government slavery. Taxation is approved by the representatives We the People elect. Libertarianism is a political pathology that endangers us all.

What about taxation that is not approved by the people?

 

[Into the Night]

You still haven’t told the forum, laughable cunt, which section of the Constitution you authored.

Amazing that you could come up with the top 2 stupidest posts this forum has ever seen. Statistics say there should be a different distribution.

lololololololol

You still stuck on this lie? Now you're compounding it with a contextomy?

 

[Into the Night]

[FONT="]The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
[/FONT]
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Look, idiot. Proposing an amendment is not passing the amendment. Congress cannot ratify it's own amendment proposals! ONLY the States can change the Constitution and ONLY by the procedures set forth in that Constitution.

 

[Flash]

That makes no more sense than all the views they share with conservatives.

Think this through. You are so much brighter than idiot boy, StY.

They share views with liberals (social issues/civil liberties) and conservatives (economic issues).

You said "Libertarianism is a political pathology that endangers us all." That means the liberal elements and conservative elements libertarians share with both are both political pathologies.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They share views with liberals (social issues/civil liberties) and conservatives (economic issues).

You said "Libertarianism is a political pathology that endangers us all." That means the liberal elements and conservative elements libertarians share with both are both political pathologies.

that must also mean that liberal and conservative policies endanger us all...........go figure

 

[Flash]

Lie. The Court does not have authority to usurp authority over the Constitution. Time makes no difference.

It does not usurp authority, it performs the function of interpreting the document which is often written in broad and vague terms. The Constitution obviously does not interpret itself or there would not be legal debates over these issues.

For example, when you claim the power to make laws regarding naturalization include the power over immigration, that is not in the Constitution. You are discovering it in some broader definition of the document; in other words, you are changing what the Constitution actually says and giving it greater power then the specific wording. That is why it requires court interpretation.

 

[Flash]

that must also mean that liberal and conservative policies endanger us all...........go figure

That is at least as accurate as the claim that only liberal or only conservative policies endanger us.

It is impossible for libertarian policies to endanger us because they never get anything passed.

 

[jimmymccready]

They share views with liberals (social issues/civil liberties) and conservatives (economic issues).

You said "Libertarianism is a political pathology that endangers us all." That means the liberal elements and conservative elements libertarians share with both are both political pathologies.

Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It does not usurp authority, it performs the function of interpreting the document which is often written in broad and vague terms. The Constitution obviously does not interpret itself or there would not be legal debates over these issues.

For example, when you claim the power to make laws regarding naturalization include the power over immigration, that is not in the Constitution. You are discovering it in some broader definition of the document; in other words, you are changing what the Constitution actually says and giving it greater power then the specific wording. That is why it requires court interpretation.

the constitution is very plain and very clear about the powers it gives to the federal government. only lazy minded people claim the constitution is broad and vague

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.

that is patently absurd bullshit

 

[Flash]

No court has authority over the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

Which means the legislative and executive branches are free to take any actions they choose because there is no check on their constitutional powers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Which means the legislative and executive branches are free to take any actions they choose because there is no check on their constitutional powers.

how do you figure that? if congress makes a law that violates the constitution, the courts could simply dismiss every case that the executive would bring forth to it. there's your check

 

[Flash]

Not in the slightest. The fallacy is one of difference not kind. We are all human, Hitler was human, thus we are the same as Hitler.

Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both are pathological in terms of dominating the weaker.

Libertarianism does not seek to dominate anybody. They seek the greatest amount of economic and social freedom. Do the social elements liberals share with libertarians seek to dominate the weak?

Communist theory also does not seek to dominate the weak. But it has always existed in nations with authoritarian political cultures and never reached its utopian goals.

 

[Flash]

how do you figure that? if congress makes a law that violates the constitution, the courts could simply dismiss every case that the executive would bring forth to it. there's your check

That means the courts are interpreting the Constitution by choosing to dismiss cases they interpret as based on an unconstitutional law.

That does not solve the problem of presidential actions and legislative laws that do not involve cases brought before the courts. If the president issued an unconstitutional executive order or Congress passed an unconstitutional governmental program (ACC) there are no cases brought to the courts.

The only cases would be suits challenging the constitutionality of those acts and that involves court interpretation of the Constitution.