Trump Is Totally Ignorant Of The Constitution

Robo said:
Whining? On the contrary! I'm pointing out the very, very apparent fact that this President elect has no clue about constitutionalism and he's about to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend it and shortly appoint a judge to the Supreme Court sworn to uphold it.

Your willful ignorance and memory lapse is comical and beneath what you usually display as integrity in your post. Nobody in this forum has ever been more consistent in reveling the constitutional violations and ignorance of both of the duopoly parties and their representatrives and you're well aware of that.
Click to expand...

"No true Scotsman."
 
Robo said:
After noticing his apparent lack of constitutional knowledge or his willful ignorance of it, why should we believe he even knows or cares what a originalist judge like Scalia looks like?
Click to expand...

Well; if you had the intelligence of a gnat, you would know that NO President chooses nominees in a vacuum without constitutional authoritative analysis. :rofl2:

Good lord; sometimes you sound as ignorant as the brain dead Marxist lefties we have on the forum.
 
Truth Detector said:
Well; if you had the intelligence of a gnat, you would know that NO President chooses nominees in a vacuum without constitutional authoritative analysis. :rofl2:

Good lord; sometimes you sound as ignorant as the brain dead Marxist lefties we have on the forum.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Trump has no ability on his own to analyze the simplistic and perfectly obvious text of the Bill Of Rights, right douche-bag? How observant of you!
 
Robo said:
So you're saying that Trump has no ability on his own to analyze the simplistic and perfectly obvious text of the Bill Of Rights, douche-bag? How observant of you!
Click to expand...

Wrong again ass-clown; I am saying that Trump has at his disposal unlimited scholarly advice on the Constitution unlike whacked out lunatics like you on the internet; he will have plenty of guidance. Now if only we could get people like you and the loony left professional help we would all have a very Merry Christmas.

:rofl2:
 
The several United States are sovereign within their purview and their jurisdiction.

The federal government has no police power jurisdiction over the several States of the Union.

We have a federal Constitution that expressly delegates federal power over the several and sovereign United States of the Union.
 
Truth Detector said:
Wrong again ass-clown; I am saying that Trump has at his disposal unlimited scholarly advice on the Constitution unlike whacked out lunatics like you on the internet; he will have plenty of guidance. Now if only we could get people like you and the loony left professional help we would all have a very Merry Christmas.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

So Trump has professional advise how to violate the Bill Of Rights, right numb-nuts? Can you relate to the class how they plan to "TRUMP" the 1st amendment and lock folks up for burning flags and revoking their citizenship?

Oh! Wait! You never are able to cover your stupid ass relative to anything that comes off of your dumb-ass keyboard, huh clueless?
 
Robo said:
So Trump has professional advise how to violate the Bill Of Rights, right numb-nuts? Can you relate to the class how they plan to "TRUMP" the 1st amendment and lock folks up for burning flags and revoking their citizenship?

Oh! Wait! You never are able to cover your stupid ass relative to anything that comes off of your dumb-ass keyboard, huh clueless?
Click to expand...

Here you go retard:

Gonzales v. Raich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/

YEE HEM v. THE UNITED STATES
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1920/Yeehem.htm

WONG TAI v. UNITED STATES
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1920/Wongtai.htm

THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE POWER

Congress can only act using powers enumerated in the Constitution.5 In addition, the 10th Amendment reserves to states those powers not specifically granted to Congress nor denied to the states. The Commerce Clause, however, vests potentially broad authority in Congress to pursue legislative reforms addressing a wide range of matters.

The Commerce Clause states that “Congress shall have the Power… to regulate Commerce… among the several States… .”1 Congress has relied upon this provision to enact legislation covering public health priorities as diverse as drug labeling;6 environmental protection;7 laws regulating child labor, the minimum wage, and conditions of employment;8 and laws aimed at remedying gender-motivated violence.9

The Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence can be divided into several distinct phases. From the earliest days of the nation to the late 19th century, the Court generally moved toward a more expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, as the role of the federal government in addressing the needs of a maturing nation became clearer.10 But in the decades preceding the New Deal, the Supreme Court, operating in a more laissez-faire social and economic environment, interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause more narrowly, striking down numerous laws intended to protect the public's health.11

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151195/
 
Supreme Court Keeps Medical Marijuana Illegal

The Supreme Court declined today to make an exception that would legalize the medical use of marijuana under federal law.

Federal law labels marijuana an illegal "controlled substance." And in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the high court ruled that patients with debilitating diseases who take the drug to relieve their pain would be doing so illegally.

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131034&page=1
 
Truth Detector said:
Here you go retard:

Gonzales v. Raich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses
Click to expand...

And that “TRUMPS” the 1st amendment and allows Trump to lock up flag burners and revoke their citizenship, right jerkoff?

But in the decades preceding the New Deal, the Supreme Court, operating in a more laissez-faire social and economic environment, interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause more narrowly, striking down numerous laws intended to protect the public's health.11

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151195/
Click to expand...

So now you’re a “NEW DEALER neo-communist socialist FDR hero worshiper, huh dick-head? Bet you loved the Court ruling that made ObamaCare legal extortion when your other hero Roberts declared it constitutional, right useless/clueless?
 
Truth Detector said:
Supreme Court Keeps Medical Marijuana Illegal

The Supreme Court declined today to make an exception that would legalize the medical use of marijuana under federal law.

Federal law labels marijuana an illegal "controlled substance." And in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the high court ruled that patients with debilitating diseases who take the drug to relieve their pain would be doing so illegally.

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131034&page=1
Click to expand...

How humorous! The Truth Deflector looking up Supreme Court quotes. To hell with original logical honest defined constitutional text, we'll all bow down to the supreme wisdom of the fucking Black Robed Gang Of Nine, huh dip-shit?

If you agree with our ultra liberal Gang Of Nine , those partisan ideologues, appointed by partisan ideologues and confirmed by more partisan ideologues, then you surely will explain why in the year of our Lord 1919 the Gang Of Nine came to the conclusion that they needed a constitutional amendment to institute prohibition of alcohol yet no such amendment was even considered for some drugs? How come they didn't use the super elastic Commerce Clause that covers all of their NEW DEAL sins?
 
danielpalos said:
Even professional politicians are clueless and Causeless; can't really expect a businessman to be proficient at the law, simply from jury duty.
Click to expand...

That is absolute nonsense.

Anyone who went to school learned abut the Constitution and it's amendments by 3rd grade.

This is elementary school civics, we're talking about, here.

I absolutely expect elected officials to understand the most-oft cited Amendment throughout our country's history- that'd be the 1st Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution.

If you don't know it, you shouldn't be governing by it.

YOU may be willing to make excuses for unqualified candidates & officials. I'm not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top