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

[SmarterthanYou]

the thing that's total horseshit is thinking that only government can guarantee freedom LOL

how'd that work for the founders?

 

[Into the Night]

It does not usurp authority,

Lie. You have put yourself in another paradox. You are being irrational now.

it performs the function of interpreting the document which is often written in broad and vague terms.

It does not have authority to.

The Constitution obviously does not interpret itself or there would not be legal debates over these issues.

It does not need 'interpretation'. It is plainly written.

For example, when you claim the power to make laws regarding naturalization include the power over immigration, that is not in the Constitution.

Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.

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.

No. YOU are attempting to redefine what 'naturalization' means.

That is why it requires court interpretation.

The court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

But they have.

Random police roadblocks are a thing of the past in some States.
Cannabis is legal now in some States.
There is no active Selective Service system anymore.
There are now some States that have no permit or regulation required to carry a gun, even concealed.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Libertarians do not seek to dominate.

 

[Into the Night]

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

No, it doesn't mean that. The court DOES have authority over laws passed by Congress.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Communism DOES seek to dominate the weak. It can only exist by stealing wealth. It can only be implemented by oligarchy or dictatorship. The same is true of fascism (the other form of socialism).

 

[Into the Night]

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

WRONG. It means the court is interpreting the law, not the Constitution. The law MUST conform to the Constitution.

That does not solve the problem of presidential actions

Yes it does.

and legislative laws that do not involve cases brought before the courts.

Yes it does.

If the president issued an unconstitutional executive order or Congress passed an unconstitutional governmental program (ACC) there are no cases brought to the courts.

Lie. Yes there are.

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

No. It involves interpreting the law being challenged only. The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

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

It is about the substantive right.

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

Anyone is qualified to talk about case law. YOU don't get to decide who can talk about case law.

Are you for or against a person brandishing a weapon in public and thereby scaring the shit out of people?

Carrying a weapon is not brandishing it. Carrying a sword is not brandishing it.

What if I jump up on my table, pull out my shotgun and wave it around motioning everyone to the ground?

That is brandishing. You might very well get shot. It is a lethal threat.

Is that alarming to you?

Yes. It is an immediate lethal threat.

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?

Not a problem.

What if I sit at Denny's across
from your wife and gently set down my pistol with the barrel aimed at her? Alarming?

Only because it is careless handling of the weapon.

Keep those things at home locked up or in your truck unless you are in a field on "N ranch" shooting your dinner.

No. The right of self defense is inherent.

 

[Into the Night]

That would assume Congress opposes that executive order

Yes it would. Good for you.

or the president opposes the legislation (which he could have vetoed).

Yes it would. Good for you.

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.

No, he is not. It's called a 'veto'.

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

Yes there is. The States themselves, or the people.

There is much in the Constitution that is vague

Nothing.

or does not cover modern events

Yes it does.

and must be interpreted by the courts.

The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

Does "necessary and proper" mean absolutely necessary or just convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress?

Context please. Void argument fallacy.

Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree on its meaning in the creation of a national bank.

Jefferson is correct on that matter.

Thus, the courts had to interpret that provision that determined the constitutionality of the bank.

The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

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.

To a certain degree, yes.

If so, the Constitution's provision to execute the laws is not actually a requirement.

It is. That is up to the States to decide if he is or is not, or to the people.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Lie.

 

[jimmymccready]

the thing that's total horseshit is thinking that only government can guarantee freedom LOL
how'd that work for the founders?

The US became a country. The US survived a Civil War. The US helped to destroy militarism, fascism, and Nazism. The US survived the GD. If we were a libertarian people, we would still be starving at Jamestown.