A Better Country
A question for all you guys who think we should have a nation without rules. What better country should we move to?
0
-
The question:
Does the government have the authority to regulate, control, restrict or otherwise infringe on a citizens ability to keep and bear arms?
As a practical matter, the government (many various governments actally - federal, atate, local) are doing it every day. So - "Do they have the authority?" Yes, and they use their various authorities every day.
If you asking the question - "Does the Constitution allow them to have such authority?", that is before the SCOTUS right now.
And that is what the Constitution requires -
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Under this section and the Judiciary Act of 1789, the United States Supreme Court was created. The Act organized the Supreme Court, the federal circuit courts and the federal district courts, established the Office of the Attorney General, and reserved the president's right to nominate justices for appointment to the United States Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We know, from your previous statements,that you disagree with the Constitution. Fortunately we can rely on the Constitution, our laws, and the courts, and need pay no attention to anonymous, agenda driven, legally and historically naive, internet posters.0 -
quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
The question:
Does the government have the authority to regulate, control, restrict or otherwise infringe on a citizens ability to keep and bear arms?
As a practical matter, the government (many various governments actally - federal, atate, local) are doing it every day. So - "Do they have the authority?" Yes, and they use their various authorities every day.
Appreciate the response triple, but you are confusing "authority" with "power".
If you asking the question - "Does the Constitution allow them to have such authority?"[/b], that is before the SCOTUS right now.
The Constitution clearly does NOT "allow", or otherwise "provide for" the Federal Government any such authority, soon to be forthcoming SCOTUS ruling or not.
And that is what the Constitution requires -
Where in the US Constitution does it authorize judges to set aside one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
Once again, you are confusing things in your own mind.
The ONLY Constitutional method of changing something expressly listed, delegated, authorized, prohibited or enumerated in the US Constitution, is throught the amendment process.
The SCOTUS was never to rule on the Constitution or Bill of Rights themselves, but rather on legislation or government actions taken that may be contrary to those documents.
One could look at their role as using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a measure, or "yardstick" if you will, to judge the constitutionality of some Federal Government action or legislation.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Under this section and the Judiciary Act of 1789, the United States Supreme Court was created. The Act organized the Supreme Court, the federal circuit courts and the federal district courts, established the Office of the Attorney General, and reserved the president's right to nominate justices for appointment to the United States Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We know, from your previous statements,that you disagree with the Constitution.
I submit that I am one of few people who take an honest look and position that is actually upholding of the Constitution.
Educate yourself about the founding documents sir. Quit letting others tell you what the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean. They are relatively simple to read and extremely easy to understand and to research.
It ain't rocket science triple.[:o)] Even you could probably get it if you applied yourself.
Fortunately we can rely on the Constitution, our laws, and the courts, and need pay no attention to anonymous, agenda driven, legally and historically naive, internet posters.
Unfortunately we CAN'T rely on our Constitution and the courts. The Constitution is consistently ignored, deliberately misconstrued, misinterpreted and otherwise misunderstood by persons such as yourself and modern "New American" Government.
As for legal and/or historical ignorance, I am on the side of the Angels in my understanding of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.[;)]0 -
As for legal and/or historical ignorance, I am on the side of the Angels in my understanding of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?
So, you admit you are legally and historically naive.
Like everyone, you have an opinion, and yours is just about as important as the kid's at McDonalds. One opinion, and a poorly informed, ill-educated one at that.
The judges on the SCOTUS have opinions too. Theirs are substantially more important that yours. So are the opinions of lower court judges, and elected legislators. That's as it should be, Constitutional.
Say, just what sort of "Peace Officer", as you claim, are you?
Are you an officer who has sworn to uphold laws, even those you don't like - gun laws, or -
are you a mall security guard?
Still waiting for you to answer a rather simple Constitutional question, the one you've been ducking for weeks - in case you've forgotten, here it is again -
What are the president's powers in time or war, and how do they differ from his powers in time of peace?
Simple question fo anyone who actually understands the Constitution, eh?0 -
Triple you are not even worth replying to. Sorry chump. 0 -
I can't beleive my simple question has generated so much rambling dialog! A simple question requires a simple answer!
In my opinion, no matter how much is wrong with this wonderful country of ours, there is still no other country I am willing to relocate to.0 -
quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
As for legal and/or historical ignorance, I am on the side of the Angels in my understanding of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?
Don't know, but how many can sit on your head, it is the same size?
So, you admit you are legally and historically naive.
Where did you gather this pearl of wisdom?
I don't think you'll find any admissions like that.
I suspect it was pulled from your sphincter, just like the majority of your posted views.[;)]
Like everyone, you have an opinion, and yours is just about as important as the kid's at McDonalds. One opinion, and a poorly informed, ill-educated one at that.
Ok smart guy, how about you edumacate me then?
If your off-base and wrong interpretations reference the meaning of the Constitution are an example of your wisdom and knowledge, save it, okay?
The judges on the SCOTUS have opinions too. Theirs are substantially more important that yours. So are the opinions of lower court judges, and elected legislators. That's as it should be, Constitutional.
Another clear fallacy in your argument, as usual.
Our system certainly empowers them to judge, but to judge things as constitutional, such as cases on government infringements of Amendment II, when clearly they are not, well, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, now isn't it.
You do understand the difference in ruling on legislation, or government action, while using the Constitution as a measure -vs- a ruling that directly contradicts a fundamental right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, don't you?
Probably not.
Say, just what sort of "Peace Officer", as you claim, are you?
What sorts of "Peace Officer" do you think I am, or claim to be?
Are you an officer who has sworn to uphold laws, even those you don't like - gun laws, or -
Uh, my Oath of Office which I swore to, bound me to support and defend the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona.
Any laws passed and/or on the books that are contrary to either of those documents, are unjust and not binding on me.
are you a mall security guard?
Yeah, you found me out. I work at the mall.
Damn triple, that was a lame attempt at.....something.
Still waiting for you to answer a rather simple Constitutional question, the one you've been ducking for weeks - in case you've forgotten, here it is again -
Sorry Skippy. I don't duck such as you. I don't recall your asking me a question.
If you'll notice, I generally skip responding to your posts and reading them, since they are so far above my limited understanding.
I don't want to embarrass myself by being soundly thrashed by your superior wisdom and wit, at least half.
Once in awhile I can't help myself from poking the little anti-Constitution monkey to see you er him come howling out of his cage.[}:)]
What are the president's powers in time or war, and how do they differ from his powers in time of peace?
Under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2, war powers are divided between the Congress and the President.
Congress has the constitutional duty and authority to raise and support the armed forces. They also have the duty and authority to declare war.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
Your above question (in part), highly educated as you are, reads "in time or war". I assume that you actually meant "in time of war", so I'll proceed under that assumption. (although it is pretty difficult keeping up with a smart guy like you[:o)])
In time of war the POTUS is clearly the Commander in Chief.
Your question revolves around what defines a war and who gets us into such hostilities, at least as I read into it.
There is not the time to properly discuss this in written form, unless you want to do some give and take to flesh out the issue.
If you are going to take a position in support of the constitutionality of unchecked POTUS authority to enter into war, you would be wrong.
The Constitution simply states that the Congress is the recognized authority to declare war and the POTUS is the one to direct the armed forces during that war.
Simple question fo anyone who actually understands the Constitution, eh?
Well, I AM "ill-educated", but I would guess that you actually meant "for anyone who actually understands", rather than "fo" anyone.
Unless of course you are speaking Ebonics.
And yes, it actually is pretty simple.0 -
Well my answer is no, they shouldn't be able to do such a thing. That is wrong to infringe on our rights as citizens, because if they did we wouldn't be free anymore; right? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by usmc572
Well my answer is no, they shouldn't be able to do such a thing. That is wrong to infringe on our rights as citizens, because if they did we wouldn't be free anymore; right?
I'll take that as a no to the question, although the question was "do they have the "Authority", not "should they be able to".
We all know that they are "able to" and do so with regularity, this due to a deliberately ignored Constitution and a stupid, ignorant and apathetic citizenry.
Amendment II denies them the "authority" to infringe, or otherwise regulate.
Thanks for the response usmc572....Semper Fi.0 -
Our system certainly empowers them to judge, but to judge things as constitutional, such as cases on government infringements of Amendment II, when clearly they are not, well, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, now isn't it.
Yadda...yadda...yadda.
Again you propose that we simply eliminate the SCOTUS, because, after all...all we need do is ask you.
Supreme Court? We don't need no steenking Supreme Court.
Hey, maybe you can get an understudy job with that other know-it-all, Rush The Klown. LMAO!0 -
quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
Our system certainly empowers them to judge, but to judge things as constitutional, such as cases on government infringements of Amendment II, when clearly they are not, well, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, now isn't it.
Yadda...yadda...yadda.
Again you propose that we simply eliminate the SCOTUS, because, after all...all we need do is ask you.
Nothing ever changes with you triple.
Okay, put up or shut up time.
Show me where I EVER proposed, suggested, or otherwise advocated getting rid of the SCOTUS.
I won't hold my breath, because you will not find such a reference, regardless of your puffed up claim.
Supreme Court? We don't need no steenking Supreme Court.
See the above response.
You probably are not aware of it, but the Constitution established America's Federal Government with three (3) branches of government. It was intended as a system of checks and balances.
Those three branches are the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Branches. The SCOTUS being a part of the Judicial Branch.
Obviously you are willfully ignoring and/or failing to address the point about what exactly the SCOTUS is intended to review and what the SCOTUS' Constitutional mandates and authority are.
Hey, maybe you can get an understudy job with that other know-it-all, Rush The Klown. LMAO!
Now, after you've shot your wad with the off-base, sophomoric diversionary tactics, how about addressing any of the actual points.
Again, I won't hold my breath since you've got nothing to respond with except a wrong understanding of the Constitution and the proper role of the SCOTUS.
I have a serious suggestion for you triple.
I suggest you purchase or borrow, then read, "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
This will give you a good basic understanding of why your position is flawed and why I espouse the things that I do.
I mean this in all seriousness triple.
I really see you as merely ignorant, not stupid. You fail to have an understanding of the basis of our Constitutional Republic and the specific roles of the differing branches of the Federal Government and how the Constitution has been usurped through the courts, particularly the SCOTUS.
If you take the time to educate yourself, maybe we can have a constructive discussion about adult topics and the future of America.0 -
I suggest you purchase or borrow, then read, "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano? NAPOLITANO??? That homosexual Faux News CLOWN??? The one who can't get 30 seconds anywhere else?
That dolt with NO credentials at all?
THAT Napolitano?
No wonder you're screwed up.
Go do something within your competence level; maybe write some parking tickets.
BBWWWAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
I suggest you purchase or borrow, then read, "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano? NAPOLITANO??? That homosexual Faux News CLOWN??? The one who can't get 30 seconds anywhere else?
That dolt with NO credentials at all?
THAT Napolitano?
No wonder you're screwed up.
Go do something within your competence level; maybe write some parking tickets.
BBWWWAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!
Clearly you are simply a clueless numbnuts.
Judge Napolitano is on faux news at times, but I guarantee that they will NOT let him discuss his knowledge and views on the Constitution while appearing there in any detail, if at all.
That would be the reason he gets little air time dolt.
Faux news is squarely in the globalist agenda camp, thus, not interested in informing America about the Constitution.
Since you continually toss out your various and sundry "pearls of wisdom" on the subject of the courts related to the Constitution; I though maybe an informed, methodical dissection of what has happened to the Constitution via the courts, would be educational.
Clearly I should have known better. You like to spout off, but have nothing behind it but mouth.
Now, setting aside your mindless drivel, would you care to step up, man up and debate the "TOPIC"?
I think not, since when you are confronted with any informed opinion, or position contrary to your own, you fold like a cheap suit and subsequently resort to diversion tactics and sophomoric superfluous rhetoric.
You toss out an idea, usually a screwed up one, then when challenged, or a debate is opened, you revert to the above foolishness.
Go figure.
Just another example of the "little *ignorant anti-Constitution monkey, howling from his cage".*new addition to the description[;)]
triple, you are simply afraid and unable to debate a topic, since you always end up showing your ass.
Frankly, you bore me and are not worth wasting time on, but hey, I gave it a try at least.
Come back if you want to speak to an adult about an adult topic, but please, if you do, get educated first, it is kinda embarrassing to see you fall flat so often.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Come back if you want to speak to an adult about an adult topic, but please, if you do, get educated first, it is kinda embarrassing to see you fall flat so often.[;)]
It might be embarrassing, but it sure is freaking entertaining.0 -
This thread has degenerated into nothing but insults.
ENOUGH.
From BOTH of ya.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
44 comments