OK/NE Republicans request activist judges destroy 10A...

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Where you stand on this issue tells me whether you love freedom or you love government.

Most conservatives seem to love government, they just don't want to pay taxes to run said government.

People call themselves all kinds of things but a rose by any other name smells the same. Conservatives dislike government...period. If you like government youre no conservative, youre a RINO.

 

[BotanyBoy]

People call themselves all kinds of things but a rose by any other name smells the same. Conservatives dislike government...period. If you like government youre no conservative, youre a RINO.

LMFAO!!! "Federal gumbbint bad!! Only RINO's support big gubbmint."

Very next breath....

Use and possession violates Federal Laws that aren't enforced by Obamullah. Obamullah asserts prosecutorial discretion for prosecuting none. The Constitution orders the President to execute the laws in good faith. The states are harmed by Obamullah's inaction. so they have standing. The victim always has standing.

"I want big government to make other states live how I think they should and not how they voted because so much conservatism!!" LMFAO.

So Obamullah respecting the will of the people and states rights = harm to the people hua?? Because you like federal laws over state ones in this particular instance suddenly you're pro federal supremacy just like vettey...only when it's convenient for you to be so....fucking RINO.

When will you conservitards learn your conservitard rhetoric doesn't line up with your theocon GOP dipshittery that is the war on dugs?? You can't support both without looking like a self contradicting fuckin' moron.....

 

[1sickbastard]

LMFAO!!! "Federal gumbbint bad!! Only RINO's support big gubbmint."

Very next breath....



"I want big government to make other states live how I think they should and not how they voted because so much conservatism!!" LMFAO.

So Obamullah respecting the will of the people and states rights = harm to the people hua?? Because you like federal laws over state ones in this particular instance suddenly you're pro federal supremacy just like vettey...only when it's convenient for you to be so....fucking RINO.

When will you conservitards learn your conservitard rhetoric doesn't line up with your theocon GOP dipshittery that is the war on dugs?? You can't support both without looking like a self contradicting fuckin' moron.....

Too be fair, JBJ is probably still pissed that states rights proved insufficient justification for the Federal Gov't in overturning Jim Crow laws and forcing states to provide equal access to all public spaces for all citizens, regardless of skin color.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Too be fair, JBJ is probably still pissed that states rights proved insufficient justification for the Federal Gov't in overturning Jim Crow laws and forcing states to provide equal access to all public spaces for all citizens, regardless of skin color.

No. I have no problems with niggers using water fountains and public transportation, they pay taxes, in theory, so who am I to deny them what they pay for! The other thing is, before Plessy v Ferguson blacks pretty much associated with whites as they do now. Plessy was 1/16th black and allowed to ride the railroad with whites until he stirred shit up with the train conductor and was placed in a black coach. His 'race' was Plan B for his misconduct in the white coach. The railroad called him an asshole, and he said he was black and discriminated against.

 

[1sickbastard]

No. I have no problems with niggers using water fountains and public transportation, they pay taxes, in theory, so who am I to deny them what they pay for! The other thing is, before Plessy v Ferguson blacks pretty much associated with whites as they do now. Plessy was 1/16th black and allowed to ride the railroad with whites until he stirred shit up with the train conductor and was placed in a black coach. His 'race' was Plan B for his misconduct in the white coach. The railroad called him an asshole, and he said he was black and discriminated against.

Which is why I qualified my statement with the word, "probably," in that I considered it likely given what I know about you through your posts, but couldn't confirm with a high degree of certainty.

But given your statement here, I'll retract any presumption on my part for motivation on your part in regard to the state's rights vs. federal primacy issue.

In fact, I'll give you to opportunity to clarify your position:
Do you favor states rights or federal primacy as pertains to individual freedoms?

 

[BotanyBoy]

In fact, I'll give you to opportunity to clarify your position:
Do you favor states rights or federal primacy as pertains to individual freedoms?

*crickets*

Any of the staunch conservative teahaddi group then?? Vette?? Miles?? NEM??BZYBDY??

http://media.giphy.com/media/Xs2ry2K0ADD7G/giphy.gif

LMFAO I guess direct questions are too much for the RW to handle....typical.

 

[Que]

Which is why I qualified my statement with the word, "probably," in that I considered it likely given what I know about you through your posts, but couldn't confirm with a high degree of certainty.

But given your statement here, I'll retract any presumption on my part for motivation on your part in regard to the state's rights vs. federal primacy issue.

In fact, I'll give you to opportunity to clarify your position:
Do you favor states rights or federal primacy as pertains to individual freedoms?

The Constitution is strictly there to limit what the feds can do to a citizen or a state. It does not prevent states from violating citizens rights in any manner a state wishes to. Except as amended to prohibit slavery in all the states. The incorporation doctrine should never have been construed to anything but what it was intended to do which is to enforce that one and only exception.

Much as I like the second amendment it only means the feds cannot restrict me. Nothing says a state or locality cannot. That said, most states have their own second amendment language in their state constitution and supremacy clauses preventing local restrictions, as my sensible state does, and I would not even travel to one that doesn't.

to the OP:

Not only no but hell no.

Don't like what your neighboring state does? Erect a Berlin wall to keep your citizens from coming back with contraband. Period, end of your options.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Constitution is strictly there to limit what the feds can do to a citizen or a state.

No, it isn't. The Constitution is strictly there to authorize a much more powerful and centralized federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed for. That is why it exists.

 

[Que]

No, it isn't. The Constitution is strictly there to authorize a much more powerful and centralized federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed for. That is why it exists.

To paraphrase eyer: fvck off you statist lawyer scumbag leech on society.

Further; Your ilk exist to distort black letter law in favor of case law and your own, self-serving, society draining, billable hour inflating agenda.

Lawyers know less about the law then homeless stevedores.

To quote a renowned constitutional lecturer/plagiarist: The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the government cannot do to you but not what it must do for you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

To paraphrase eyer: fvck off you statist lawyer scumbag leech on society.

Further; Your ilk exist to distort black letter law in favor of case law and your own, self-serving, society draining, billable hour inflating agenda.

Lawyers know less about the law then homeless stevedores.

Lawyers are better than you, query. Even the worst of us.

To quote a renowned constitutional lecturer/plagiarist: The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the government cannot do to you but not what it must do for you.

I don't care who said it, in terms of constitutional law and constitutional history, that is pure-D bullshit. The "negative liberties" are an afterthought. What the Constitution is all about is in the Preamble.

 

[Que]

I don't care who said it, in terms of constitutional law and constitutional history, that is pure-D bullshit. The "negative liberties" are an afterthought. What the Constitution is all about is in the Preamble.

I am moving to Florida to pass the bar and work for insurance companies. You are the worst lawyer I have ever conversed with. A paralegal would mop the floor with you. The preamble is a PREAMBLE. It has NO FORCE OF LAW. It is an introduction.

Idiot.

Let me guess..

Other than the required introduction to constitutional law class you have read NOTHING ever on the subject. You have not only never read any of the debates that took place as it was formed I will bet money you have never sat your ass in a chair and read the constitution from beginning to end.

Law school likes to minimize the the actual language and meaning of the constitution because entire fields of law employing thousands of lawyers in various bureaucracies and those that interface with those bureaucracies are completely proscribed by it.

I wonder what the boost to GDP if the millstone of the Legal Industrial Complex was abolished.

Don't you have some copies of Salon in your paperboy baskets to deliver while you wait for someone to slip and fall?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Constitution is strictly there to limit what the feds can do to a citizen or a state. It does not prevent states from violating citizens rights in any manner a state wishes to.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it does....and has numerous times as state laws are found unconstitutional and struck down all teh time.

to the OP:

Not only no but hell no.

Don't like what your neighboring state does? Erect a Berlin wall to keep your citizens from coming back with contraband. Period, end of your options.

*nods* Take note all you federal supremacy dick sucking RINO's like vettey, assuming JBJ too with the way he took off....this is the REAL conservative answer, because freedom and capitalism, you crony fucking pinheads.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I wonder what the boost to GDP if the millstone of the Legal Industrial Complex was abolished.

Prob right up there with at least one of the warz we are waging all the fucking time because it's fun to piss money up a flag poll.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I am moving to Florida to pass the bar and work for insurance companies.

Florida being Florida, you'll probably get in. *sigh*

The preamble is a PREAMBLE. It has NO FORCE OF LAW. It is an introduction.

I said the Preamble sets out what the Constitution is about. That's why it's there. And it makes clear the Framers did not have any "charter of negative liberties" in mind.

Other than the required introduction to constitutional law class you have read NOTHING ever on the subject. You have not only never read any of the debates that took place as it was formed I will bet money you have never sat your ass in a chair and read the constitution from beginning to end.

I've read the whole thing, and I've studied The Federalist and scholarly commentary thereon.

I wonder what the boost to GDP if the millstone of the Legal Industrial Complex was abolished.

About the same as if we adopted Stalinism. You can't have capitalism and you can't have democracy without lawyers.

 

[cowslinger64]

I am moving to Florida to pass the bar and work for insurance companies. You are the worst lawyer I have ever conversed with. A paralegal would mop the floor with you. The preamble is a PREAMBLE. It has NO FORCE OF LAW. It is an introduction.

Idiot.

Now that you've been handed your ass for like the bazillionth time... Whaddya got to say now?

 

[Que]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it does....and has numerous times as state laws are found unconstitutional and struck down all teh time.

They do now. That was the danger of the incorporation doctrine. Now that all of the other ins and outs of the constitution have been held to be controlling, the supreme court which was he supreme federal court has become the supreme court of the land. That was never the intent. The reason the are appoint for life was because they were just supposed to be neutral arbiters of federal laws passed as to whether they do, or do not comport to constitutional restrictions.

Now you have nimrods trained as Oreo was twisting "general welfare" to mean any damned thing they please. The even borrow clauses from the Declaration of Independence as if that is somehow part of the black letter law that a nation of laws, not men, is supposed to adhere to. Lawyers are to adherence to the law, what accountants are in adherence to the tax code. You hire them because you want an outcome not prescribed in law. Words have actual meaning. They are found in Blacks Law Dictionary. Lawyers do not give a shit. Most actual litigation involves houses of cards built on faulty case law. There is not a position you could possibly imagine no matter how absurd that you cannot sit with a prospective client and show them that the "law is on their side" with a few cites from previous misapplications of the law.

We need to break this union up into red states and blue states. Let them have strong authoritarian national control (and write their own damned constitution to reflect what they actually do) , and let the rest of the sane people in this country do what they wish in their own sovereign states as outlined in the actual controlling documents.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Lawyers are to adherence to the law, what accountants are in adherence to the tax code. You hire them because you want an outcome not prescribed in law.

Yeah, well, that might be what you have in mind when you retain one, but you never get it. That's why there are judges.

We need to break this union up into red states and blue states.

It's been tried. Don't go there.

Come on, you don't want to be an idiot like Ron Paul, do you?

I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject of course, is secession and nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s gonna happen! It’s happening!

And it’s not gonna be because there will be enough people in the U.S. Congress to legislate it. It won’t happen. It will be de facto. Ya know, you’ll have a gold standard when the paper standard fails and we’re getting awfully close to that. And people will have to resort to taking care of themselves. So when conditions break down, ya know, there’s gonna be an alternative. And I think that’s what we’re witnessing.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yeah, well, that might be what you have in mind when you retain one, but you never get it. That's why there are judges.



It's been tried. Don't go there.

Come on, you don't want to be an idiot like Ron Paul, do you?

It sure sounds like he's already gone there. Between talking about succession, nullification, and now speaking out against judicial review.. He's already gone full Paultard it seems.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They do now. That was the danger of the incorporation doctrine. Now that all of the other ins and outs of the constitution have been held to be controlling, the supreme court which was he supreme federal court has become the supreme court of the land. That was never the intent.

The intent was then to allow states to violate citizens constitutional rights at will??

LOL I just can't buy that....you're going to have to prove to me the country was designed with the states to not have ANY federal oversight and could violate citizens constitutional rights however they felt with no recourse for the people.

We need to break this union up into red states and blue states. Let them have strong authoritarian national control (and write their own damned constitution to reflect what they actually do) , and let the rest of the sane people in this country do what they wish in their own sovereign states as outlined in the actual controlling documents.

I'm all for that as long as blue keeps the west coast and doesn't have to give all the broke ass republican states a fucking DIME. I don't want to move and I like having the freedom to get blow jobs, have pre-marital sex, smoke good and sip lean while I'm ridin' clean. Not to mention go to good metal shows and buy booze on sunday....can't do any of that fukin' shit in those freedom loving red states, they will throw you in prison.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The intent was then to allow states to violate citizens constitutional rights at will??

LOL I just can't buy that....you're going to have to prove to me the country was designed with the states to not have ANY federal oversight and could violate citizens constitutional rights however they felt with no recourse for the people.

It's true -- see Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, SCOTUS held the BoR restrains the federal government only. That's how it was left until well after the 14th Amendment was ratified and then a line of court cases beginning in the 1920s held parts of the BoR also apply to the states, see Incorporation of the Bill of Rights (however, they have "incorporated" the parts of the BoR one at a time, piecemeal, and some have never been so addressed in any case).

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's true -- see Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, SCOTUS held the BoR restrains the federal government only. That's how it was left until well after the 14th Amendment was ratified and then a line of court cases beginning in the 1920s held parts of the BoR also apply to the states, see Incorporation of the Bill of Rights (however, they have "incorporated" the parts of the BoR one at a time, piecemeal, and some have never been so addressed in any case).

Wow I had no idea the framers were such pieces of fucking shit.....well they were slave owners talking out their ass about equality too so not really shocking I suppose.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wow I had no idea the framers were such pieces of fucking shit.....well they were slave owners talking out their ass about equality too so not really shocking I suppose.

Bear in mind the Constitution as the Framers originally drafted it had no Bill of Rights -- that was added on to ease ratification, to quiet anti-Federalist fears of federal tyranny. Hamilton was against the idea:

Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Fears of federal tyranny. At the time, including a provision that the BoR should also apply to the states would have made it harder to ratify, it would have been seen as an encroachment on state autonomy. Remember, some states at that time still had official churches.

Of course, the constitution Hamilton wanted provided for a much more centralized system than the one the Convention ultimately agreed on.

Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of strong centralized government.[18] In his plan, Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty and consolidating the states into a single nation.[18] The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years. The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[18] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[18] State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[18] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[18]

Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[18] The plan was perceived as a well-thought-out plan, but it was not considered, because it resembled the British system too closely.[18] It also contemplated the loss of most state authority, which the states were unwilling to allow.

 

[Que]

The intent was then to allow states to violate citizens constitutional rights at will??

LOL I just can't buy that....you're going to have to prove to me the country was designed with the states to not have ANY federal oversight and could violate citizens constitutional rights however they felt with no recourse for the people.



I'm all for that as long as blue keeps the west coast and doesn't have to give all the broke ass republican states a fucking DIME. I don't want to move and I like having the freedom to get blow jobs, have pre-marital sex, smoke good and sip lean while I'm ridin' clean. Not to mention go to good metal shows and buy booze on sunday....can't do any of that fukin' shit in those freedom loving red states, they will throw you in prison.

You (and I, and everyone for the last 100-150 years) have been raised in an environment of the insideuous creap of nationalism. Chants of U-S-A, U-S-A.

It is NOT the United states of AMERICA. It is the united States of america. America is the region that the individual sovereign States happen to be located that relllluctantly agreed to a modest arrangement of mutual support and protection. Think the European Union today. Germans do not chant E-U, E-U! with upraised fists of pride.

In time they, too, will be stuck in a compact that they voluntarily entered into being told by some guy in Greece how fast they can drive on the Autobon.

Nearly ALL of the power the feds have now is ONLY the result of the corrosive and corruptive influence of the fact that the feds have something that no state has. The ability to borrow unlimited amounts of money and give it to the states for various coercive programs where you take caesers gold, you must do caesers bidding.

Statistically it can be shown that people died in Western states as a result of the Federal "mandate" that the speed limit be an unrealisitic (to be complied with) 55MPH. There was NO authority for that. What the Feds did was use their power to tax to wring money from the citizens of Tejas and New ork and wherever in the form of gasoline excise taxes. That was legal. Then they gave the money back in federal money to state Highway departments for roads and bridges. Tejas needs more of that per capita then, say, Rhode Island. SO they swallowed the pride and agreed to do as the feds demanded.

This is true on every single federal program you can name.

None of it is remotely constitutional for them to dictate standards and none of it could be done without the consent of the individual states, most of which are governed by Republicans that are happy to spend federal 'boatloads of free money." SO they don;t dictate, they coarse. Same net effect.

How about this for a Matrix moment. Not only does the constitution say fuck-all about keeping religion out of the public square, it simply says the FEDS cannot pick a favored religion. This was ONLY to stop squabbling about WHICH religion might prevail. Individual states could (and some did) have OFFICIAL State religions.

The State Department does not deal with provinces of Canada. They deal with the Sovereign State that we know as Canada. A State is a country. Our country is NOT a State. A State is a higher authority than the compact that we now call a country.

Suggesting that the Feds were EVER supposed to be the final authority on ANYTHING is false.

Senator Reid was never intended to be elected by the popular whim of who ever the Vegas Unions decided to support. He is supposed to be appointed by Republican held (I assume, dunno about Nevada) legislature, NOT a popularity contest. At present there should be, I think 68 Republican Senators.

It doesnt matter if 75% of the population moves to California and New York. Those 75% of people stupid enough to live there get 4% of the vote for important changes and who sits on the supreme court. The STATES, not the people at large control the Feds. THIS is why you don't WANT the feds to have power. You do not want 25% of the people in all the sparsely populated states telling the 75% what to do. They self determine in their States how they wish to be governed.

At present that is all on its head and it will not stand forever that way. The documents are being corrupted and the opposite is happening... the majority of people by popular vote are dictating things to small states (say Colorado and MJ) how they should live and that is not only morally wrong it is strategically stupid. WHY the hell should its neighbors care what happens in the borders of another state? We do not control Mexico and the violence on that side of the border more or less stays on that side of a very porous border.

 

[BotanyBoy]

How about this for a Matrix moment. Not only does the constitution say fuck-all about keeping religion out of the public square, it simply says the FEDS cannot pick a favored religion. This was ONLY to stop squabbling about WHICH religion might prevail. Individual states could (and some did) have OFFICIAL State religions.

Thank GAWWWD ALLMITAAHHHHHH it didn't go down that way.

Actually if we weren't forced to pay for their retardation it wouldn't matter...I'd have been on the west coast anyhow, laughing at the ISIS style situation brewing in the south. Actually no...the south would still be full of slaves...that would be a bummer.

 

[cowslinger64]

You (and I, and everyone for the last 100-150 years) have been raised in an environment of the insideuous creap of nationalism. Chants of U-S-A, U-S-A.

It is NOT the United states of AMERICA. It is the united States of america. America is the region that the individual sovereign States happen to be located that relllluctantly agreed to a modest arrangement of mutual support and protection. Think the European Union today. Germans do not chant E-U, E-U! with upraised fists of pride.

In time they, too, will be stuck in a compact that they voluntarily entered into being told by some guy in Greece how fast they can drive on the Autobon.

Nearly ALL of the power the feds have now is ONLY the result of the corrosive and corruptive influence of the fact that the feds have something that no state has. The ability to borrow unlimited amounts of money and give it to the states for various coercive programs where you take caesers gold, you must do caesers bidding.

Statistically it can be shown that people died in Western states as a result of the Federal "mandate" that the speed limit be an unrealisitic (to be complied with) 55MPH. There was NO authority for that. What the Feds did was use their power to tax to wring money from the citizens of Tejas and New ork and wherever in the form of gasoline excise taxes. That was legal. Then they gave the money back in federal money to state Highway departments for roads and bridges. Tejas needs more of that per capita then, say, Rhode Island. SO they swallowed the pride and agreed to do as the feds demanded.

This is true on every single federal program you can name.

None of it is remotely constitutional for them to dictate standards and none of it could be done without the consent of the individual states, most of which are governed by Republicans that are happy to spend federal 'boatloads of free money." SO they don;t dictate, they coarse. Same net effect.

How about this for a Matrix moment. Not only does the constitution say fuck-all about keeping religion out of the public square, it simply says the FEDS cannot pick a favored religion. This was ONLY to stop squabbling about WHICH religion might prevail. Individual states could (and some did) have OFFICIAL State religions.

The State Department does not deal with provinces of Canada. They deal with the Sovereign State that we know as Canada. A State is a country. Our country is NOT a State. A State is a higher authority than the compact that we now call a country.

Suggesting that the Feds were EVER supposed to be the final authority on ANYTHING is false.

Senator Reid was never intended to be elected by the popular whim of who ever the Vegas Unions decided to support. He is supposed to be appointed by Republican held (I assume, dunno about Nevada) legislature, NOT a popularity contest. At present there should be, I think 68 Republican Senators.

It doesnt matter if 75% of the population moves to California and New York. Those 75% of people stupid enough to live there get 4% of the vote for important changes and who sits on the supreme court. The STATES, not the people at large control the Feds. THIS is why you don't WANT the feds to have power. You do not want 25% of the people in all the sparsely populated states telling the 75% what to do. They self determine in their States how they wish to be governed.

At present that is all on its head and it will not stand forever that way. The documents are being corrupted and the opposite is happening... the majority of people by popular vote are dictating things to small states (say Colorado and MJ) how they should live and that is not only morally wrong it is strategically stupid. WHY the hell should its neighbors care what happens in the borders of another state? We do not control Mexico and the violence on that side of the border more or less stays on that side of a very porous border.

Since you had the time to write out all this right here....why didn't you bother replying to the posts where KO completely showed you were wrong after you made a huge deal out of him being wrong, how stupid he was, how you knew it all.. blah blah fuckin blah?

Even someone as opinionated as I will apologize for blasting someone when I end up being wrong. You should learn that... learn some humility. Imo, this is the biggest reason why you're treated like such a tool.


And you spelled insidious wrong too.