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

jimmymccready 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 said:
that is patently absurd bullshit
Click to expand...
The truth hurts, but that is the nature of logic and definitions. They challenge belief without foundation. The libertarian and the right wing fascist ideologies are great threats to American society.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

executive orders that are unconstitutional, but bring no cases before a court, are checked by congress. they can impeach or pass a law that invalidates said order.

unconstitutional laws that do not bring cases before the court are checked by the executive by not enforcing them.

to interpret something, that something would have to be vague. the constitution is not. a law passed by congress might be, but the courts can invalidate the law for vagueness and that has nothing to do with interpreting the constituiton
 
jimmymccready said:
jimmymccready 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.

The truth hurts, but that is the nature of logic and definitions. They challenge belief without foundation. The libertarian and the right wing fascist ideologies are great threats to American society.
Click to expand...

that must mean that liberals truly hate freedom, because that's what libertarian ideology is all about.

libertarianswereright.jpg
 
This case is about the vagueness of the information, not the substantive right.

Setting aside that you are clearly not qualified to talk about case law, let's cut to the chase,

Are you for or against a person brandishing a weapon in public and thereby scaring the shit out of people?
What if I jump up on my table, pull out my shotgun and wave it around motioning everyone to the ground?
Is that alarming to you? What if I go to a park bench with a bunch of kids and take out said weapon
and methodically start cleaning it and stroking it while giggling and laughing demonically? What if I sit at Denny's across
from your wife and gently set down my pistol with the barrel aimed at her? Alarming?

Keep those things at home locked up or in your truck unless you are in a field on "N ranch" shooting your dinner.
 
Micawber said:
This case is about the vagueness of the information, not the substantive right.

Setting aside that you are clearly not qualified to talk about case law, let's cut to the chase,
Click to expand...
i'm not qualified to talk about case law??? ROFL

Micawber said:
Are you for or against a person brandishing a weapon in public and thereby scaring the shit out of people?
Click to expand...
define brandishing. Because if it's what I think brandishing is, then no. If it's what the typical anti gunner calls brandishing, then yes.

Micawber said:
What if I jump up on my table, pull out my shotgun and wave it around motioning everyone to the ground?
Click to expand...
pretty sure we call that armed robbery

Micawber said:
Is that alarming to you? What if I go to a park bench with a bunch of kids and take out said weapon
Click to expand...
what if you're in an open carry state? should that be alarming?

Micawber said:
and methodically start cleaning it and stroking it while giggling and laughing demonically?
Click to expand...
are we using my definition of branding? then that would be alarming.

Micawber said:
What if I sit at Denny's across from your wife and gently set down my pistol with the barrel aimed at her? Alarming?
Click to expand...
are you prepared to have her shoot you?

Micawber said:
Keep those things at home locked up or in your truck unless you are in a field on "N ranch" shooting your dinner.
Click to expand...
so you don't believe we have a right to self defense outside the home? is that the liberal belief in might makes right?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
executive orders that are unconstitutional, but bring no cases before a court, are checked by congress. they can impeach or pass a law that invalidates said order.

unconstitutional laws that do not bring cases before the court are checked by the executive by not enforcing them.
Click to expand...

That would assume Congress opposes that executive order or the president opposes the legislation (which he could have vetoed). If the president chose not to enforce a law passed by Congress he is violating his constitutional oath to see that the law is faithfully executed.

If Congress and the president support those acts then there is no check on their constitutionality.

SmarterthanYou said:
to interpret something, that something would have to be vague. the constitution is not. a law passed by congress might be, but the courts can invalidate the law for vagueness and that has nothing to do with interpreting the constituiton
Click to expand...

There is much in the Constitution that is vague or does not cover modern events and must be interpreted by the courts. Does "necessary and proper" mean absolutely necessary or just convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress? Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree on its meaning in the creation of a national bank. Thus, the courts had to interpret that provision that determined the constitutionality of the bank.

You seemed willing to ignore the president's order to faithfully execute the laws--does that mean the president has a choice whether to enforce a law. If so, the Constitution's provision to execute the laws is not actually a requirement.
 
Flash said:
That would assume Congress opposes that executive order or the president opposes the legislation (which he could have veto. If the president chose not to enforce a law passed by Congress he is violating his constitutional oath to see that the law is faithfully executed.

If Congress and the president support those acts then there is no check on their unconstitutionality.
Click to expand...
if the presidents veto is overridden, then we the people have spoken and are obviously in favor of it, thus it is constitutional. if the president then refuses to enforce a law that has been passed with a veto proof majority, he can then be impeached.

Flash said:
There is much in the Constitution that is vague or does not cover modern events and must be interpreted by the courts.
Click to expand...
the constitution isn't relevant when it comes to modern events because the constitution is a document that restricts the government, not the people.

Flash said:
Does "necessary and proper" mean absolutely necessary or just convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress?
Click to expand...
'necessary and proper' is confined to being exercised in pursuance of the express written powers of congress. If a law is passed that has nothing to do with those powers, it is null and void.

Flash said:
Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree on its meaning in the creation of a national bank. Thus, the courts had to interpret that provision that determined the constitutionality of the national bank.
Click to expand...
that wasn't their purview or in their power to do so.

Flash said:
You seemed willing to ignore the president's order to faithfully execute the laws.
Click to expand...
should a president be required to enforce an obviously unconstitutional law? or is the matter of constitutionality only belong to the judiciary?
 
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 said:
that must mean that liberals truly hate freedom, because that's what libertarian ideology is all about.
Click to expand...

Ummm... nope.
 
jimmymccready said:
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.

Ummm... nope.
Click to expand...

then you are terribly ill informed about libertarianism.
 
Your usual horse shit, when you have nothing to say, StY.

And you ignored Deadwood and San Francisco.

In the mining west, compare the mining towns' government to that of the Mormons in Utah. For the first decade, the Mormons had generally let business and the people do as they wish on Main and State Street until about 1860. Terrible environment for civilians, then the city government clamped down and regulated business and society. Much cleaner, much safer, much more sensible.
 
jimmymccready said:
Your usual horse shit, when you have nothing to say, StY.

And you ignored Deadwood and San Francisco.
Click to expand...
no, the usual horseshit is idiots trying to hold somalia as an example of libertarianism. complete idiocy on your part.

jimmymccready said:
In the mining west, compare the mining towns' government to that of the Mormons in Utah. For the first decade, the Mormons had generally let business and the people do as they wish on Main and State Street until about 1860. Terrible environment for civilians, then the city government clamped down and regulated business and society. Much cleaner, much safer, much more sensible.
Click to expand...

why are you using the LDS as an example against libertarianism? more idiocy. instead of using the BS talking points for hating freedom, go and actually learn about Libertarianism.
 
IOW, StY has nothing, other than the usual assertion that libertarianism is "good."

It's not.

The LDS tried libertarianism in the first decade and it endangered the community
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top