• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Duopoly Debates Another Unconstitutional Law (1 Viewer)

TheHammer

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The duopoly drones in Congress debate more gun laws. Both the Republicans and Democrats are presenting legislation that’s a bald-faced violation of the 5th amendment of the Constitution.


“No person shall......be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.....”


Any person must be accused tried and convicted of a crime before his/her inalienable right to buy a firearm can be denied.


The legislation being debated by both parties provides for unelected government bureaucrats to put people on a no fly list and or a terrorist watch list and thereby prohibit their inalienable right to keep and bear arms.


Can’t we just imagine a Democrat President and both houses of Congress being controlled by the Democrats and a Supreme Court dominated by Democrat appointees controlling the no fly and terrorist watch list? They could put the entire country on the list and thereby accomplish their goal to prohibit all guns to the American people. They could make all kinds of amendments to the legislation denying second amendment rights to all manner of people especially political enemies.


BIG government just keeps getting BIGGER!
 
where is your link to the supreme court decision making it unconstitutional.
 
you dont know how things work do you. maybe a civics 101 class will help.
 
where is your link to the supreme court decision making it unconstitutional.

Amendment 5, United States Constitution. It's the only "link" that counts! Do you understand "DUE PROCESS?"
 
you dont know how things work do you. maybe a civics 101 class will help.

Interpretation: I have no rational argument, so I'll attempt to confuse the issue.

You could always teach the class here. Tell the class "how things work."
 
Interpretation: I have no rational argument, so I'll attempt to confuse the issue.

You could always teach the class here. Tell the class "how things work."


not my job to teach you civics. I'll just point out your ignorance and you can fix it. time to stand up be be an adult.
 
not my job to teach you civics. I'll just point out your ignorance and you can fix it. time to stand up be be an adult.

I can't wait for your "pointing out my ignorance" When can I expect your first attempt?
 
The duopoly drones in Congress debate more gun laws. Both the Republicans and Democrats are presenting legislation that’s a bald-faced violation of the 5th amendment of the Constitution.


“No person shall......be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.....”


Any person must be accused tried and convicted of a crime before his/her inalienable right to buy a firearm can be denied.


The legislation being debated by both parties provides for unelected government bureaucrats to put people on a no fly list and or a terrorist watch list and thereby prohibit their inalienable right to keep and bear arms.


Can’t we just imagine a Democrat President and both houses of Congress being controlled by the Democrats and a Supreme Court dominated by Democrat appointees controlling the no fly and terrorist watch list? They could put the entire country on the list and thereby accomplish their goal to prohibit all guns to the American people. They could make all kinds of amendments to the legislation denying second amendment rights to all manner of people especially political enemies.


BIG government just keeps getting BIGGER!

If I'm not mistaken, each of the 4 proposed and voted on bills had specific due process issues, and as such, it would seem reasonable that eventually they'd have been struck down as unconstitutional.

All of these bills were little more than political theater, so that each of the legislators could go back to their home districts for the summer, and make the claim of 'we tried to pass gun legislation, but it was voted down'. As such, they are pulling legislative progress scam on their electorate, at least it seems that way to me.
 
not my job to teach you civics. I'll just point out your ignorance and you can fix it. time to stand up be be an adult.

It actually is, you called it out, back it up. It does not matter who you debate, moderate to left winf to right wing to extreme either way, you were the one who made the claim on civics class therefore you burdened yourself with the need to provide proof.
 
It actually is, you called it out, back it up. It does not matter who you debate, moderate to left winf to right wing to extreme either way, you were the one who made the claim on civics class therefore you burdened yourself with the need to provide proof.

mmmmm no, that is the ignoramus's job
 
If I'm not mistaken, each of the 4 proposed and voted on bills had specific due process issues, and as such, it would seem reasonable that eventually they'd have been struck down as unconstitutional.

All of these bills were little more than political theater, so that each of the legislators could go back to their home districts for the summer, and make the claim of 'we tried to pass gun legislation, but it was voted down'. As such, they are pulling legislative progress scam on their electorate, at least it seems that way to me.

That's exactly what is happening. Same ol' same ol' from our representatives.
 
not my job to teach you civics. I'll just point out your ignorance and you can fix it. time to stand up be be an adult.

But what you seem to be actually doing is demonstrating your ignorance, or at least poor comprehension. :peace
 
it is like the law, ignorance is no excuse.

The SC hasn't ruled on any of these bills yet, and given congress's track record for actually accomplishing things, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Since there is not a ruling, this constitutionality of these bills is entirely up for debate. As such, when one asserts that they are not constitutional, they must explain their position.

The conservatives have said that they think that these bills violate their right to due process, which makes it unconstitutional. You obviously disagree, but have failed to explain why.
 
The SC hasn't ruled on any of these bills yet, and given congress's track record for actually accomplishing things, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Since there is not a ruling, this constitutionality of these bills is entirely up for debate. As such, when one asserts that they are not constitutional, they must explain their position.

The conservatives have said that they think that these bills violate their right to due process, which makes it unconstitutional. You obviously disagree, but have failed to explain why.

It is NOT the SC job to interpret the constitution, it is their job to interpret if laws are constitutional. They have routinely violated their constitutional oath and authority and IMO should be removed from the bench when they do so.
 
The SC hasn't ruled on any of these bills yet, and given congress's track record for actually accomplishing things, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Since there is not a ruling, this constitutionality of these bills is entirely up for debate. As such, when one asserts that they are not constitutional, they must explain their position.

The conservatives have said that they think that these bills violate their right to due process, which makes it unconstitutional. You obviously disagree, but have failed to explain why.



your assertion that the SC rule on something that doesnt exist is just plain nuts. getting back to reality the supreme court has ruled that guns can be controlled, bone up on it.
 
It actually is, you called it out, back it up. It does not matter who you debate, moderate to left winf to right wing to extreme either way, you were the one who made the claim on civics class therefore you burdened yourself with the need to provide proof.

Apparently, he's all hat and no cattle.
 
The SC hasn't ruled on any of these bills yet, and given congress's track record for actually accomplishing things, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Since there is not a ruling, this constitutionality of these bills is entirely up for debate. As such, when one asserts that they are not constitutional, they must explain their position.

The conservatives have said that they think that these bills violate their right to due process, which makes it unconstitutional. You obviously disagree, but have failed to explain why.

He's all hat and no cattle! His expertise is limited to accusations without evidence. The type is a dime a dozen.
 
That's exactly what is happening. Same ol' same ol' from our representatives.

Yes. And it is the same ol' same ol' that is provoking a serious voter rebellion against that permanent political class that exists to maintain the status quo and depends on our complacency and ignorance to continue to use us all as their useful fools. It is a backlash against the predictable M.O. of a permanent political class that exists to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

Last night's 'sit in' in the House by the Democrats is just more evidence of their hypocrisy. They know damn well that if Ryan allows another vote on another unconstitutional gun law, it will be voted down again. But they use that as political theater to fool their constituencies back home that they are 'fighting for them'. And the GOP does the same.

It is the folks who are fed up at last with all that crap that have given rise to a Bernie Sanders and a Donald Trump.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom