The Duopoly Debates Another Unconstitutional Law

[TheHammer]

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.

You'll quote the part of the Court's decision that says guns can be controlled by denying other constitutionally protected rights, right?

 

[TheHammer]

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.

A Communist and an admitted felon who made a fortune bribing public officials. Then there's Hillary! Maybe she can govern from jail, huh? That's where she belongs!

Forgive us Lord for we know not what we do!

 

[Brochacholomigo]

I'm going to be feeling this gaffe for a while...

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.

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.

I meant that the SC wouldn't rule on any of these bills until they were actually signed into law, and that congress was unlikely to actually get enough votes on any of these bills to make them law. This was very poorly phrased on my part, and I expect I'll be getting notifications about it for quite a while.

In the meantime, the argument still stands that these bills are unconstitutional, as they infringe on one's right to due process.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A Communist and an admitted felon who made a fortune bribing public officials. Then there's Hillary! Maybe she can govern from jail, huh? That's where she belongs!

Forgive us Lord for we know not what we do!

I guess I am not as judgmental when it comes to these people. I do not believe Trump is an admitted felon nor do I think he made his fortune by bribing public officials. He has played the game for sure as all big business has to do. I do believe he is an imperfect man of vision who truly wants to make the country great again. And if that enhances the Trump brand, then that's a nice bonus for him.

I do not believe Bernie Sanders is a communist. I believe he is a socialist and a decent human being that I respect a lot, but who I cannot support because I cannot share his views of what will repair the damage we have done to the country.

I do not believe Hillary Clinton is the witch and demon as some would portray her, but I do believe she harbors sociopathic tendencies in her easy ability to bend and fabricate the truth and I don't see much compassion or other endearing human qualities in her. And I see her as lacking in competence in knowing how to accomplish much of anything.

But the Hillary supporters are definitely the status quo people who vote out of hate for others and not out of any respect for what she has accomplished or her vision since she hasn't accomplished much and her vision is purely expedient and self serving.

Sanders and Trump supporters are willing to gamble on an unknown in hope that the status quo can be broken down and something positive and good accomplished. They are voting for a principle and perhaps a bit of desperate hope that the downward spiral this country has been on for some time can be reversed.

Further, if the Supreme Court is embedded with a strong liberal majority, the issues in this thread are moot. We will have lost a Court that trusts and upholds the Constitution for at least a generation. I trust Trump most to make the upcoming appointments.

 

[katzgar]

You're an expert in "ignoramus," right?

only because I see so many on threads like this.

 

[katzgar]

I'm going to be feeling this gaffe for a while...





I meant that the SC wouldn't rule on any of these bills until they were actually signed into law, and that congress was unlikely to actually get enough votes on any of these bills to make them law. This was very poorly phrased on my part, and I expect I'll be getting notifications about it for quite a while.

In the meantime, the argument still stands that these bills are unconstitutional, as they infringe on one's right to due process.

LOL, probably. they really wont rule on them till someone files a law suit the other variable is they will probably need all 9 justices

 

[katzgar]

You'll quote the part of the Court's decision that says guns can be controlled by denying other constitutionally protected rights, right?

irrelevant

 

[TheHammer]

irrelevant

As usual, all hat and no cattle!

 

[katzgar]

As usual, all hat and no cattle!

I know, you could stick to topic next time.

 

[beerftw]

mmmmm no, that is the ignoramus's job

You may need to google burden of proof.