And can you absolutely state that ALL the SCOTUS judges believe it is a "living" document?
Oklahoma House democrats introduce SAVE Act to curb gun violence
- Thread starter NationalMatch
- Start Date
And can you absolutely state that ALL the SCOTUS judges believe it is a "living" document?
Living document. Reinterpreted as however they want. That is exactly what the Democrats do. And that is why it is important to have staunch Constitutionalists or people that firmly believe in the Constitution be appointed. Trump did a damn good job there. I know people say there’s no difference between republican and democrat but I do not believe that. We have three good judges appointed by Trump. And that flies in the face of everything Democrats want. Right now we have a 6 - 3 maybe 5-4 advantage for patriotism, constitutionalism and freedom.
The Supreme Court has been a joke. When you have justices like Ruth Bader, Sotomayer, Roberts and the soon to be Ketanji Brown that can’t identify what a woman is because she’s not a doctor or whatever BS answer that was. Liberal progressive Democrats and that fake Republican Roberts say the Constitution is a living document. They are not constitutionalists. Feck them.
No I can't, but it seems to be, more and more, the way things are going. The constitution is no longer a priority when it comes to some of the decisions they hand down. Now they are more interested in what the "public" deems to be acceptable.
I agree they should be staunch constitutionalists, but the reality is they aren't and even though I agree that Trump's appointments are preferable to those the democrats would have appointed do they all really have the peoples best interests in their hearts? I don't think so. I think that if they did we would have, at the very least, seen more push back against the election results in Pennsylvania? That was clearly a rigged election and yet nothing was done about it.
Our people are by the book and they believe in the book. It’s annoying because the other side ignores it but it is what it is. And by this I mean the conservatives are book nerds. They take things like precedent and standing and we’re stuck. Then you take Democrats and they don’t believe in that the laws or guidelines and the constitution is a living breathing piece of paper to interpret it however they want. That or they just ignore the law. Kind of like how the Supreme Court ruled that Joe Biden has to enforce the border like Trump implemented it and they’re ignoring it.
Democrats ignore the law. And they stuffed the ballot boxes. And even though we know this we can’t prove it until after the fact. Before the elections they said every vote was going to count. They didn’t lie. Unless the states themselves stand up, there will be no justice. Because we can’t prove the real from the fake ballots due to these drop boxes The justices won’t do anything. Because we can’t prove the fake from the real. The only way to fight this I would imagine is to have people on our side commit the same crimes and stuff even more into the boxes. So what if there’s 200 or 300% turnouts. Beat them at their own game.
It’s hard to win when the other side is cheating. And the goalies a.k.a. the judges won’t hear it because of procedural rules.
Last edited:
I [would like to] believe that by being appointed for life rather than having to be re-elected or re-appointed periodically, the 'beholding' aspect is eliminated. It would be nice if there was always an even conservative vs liberal divide within SCOTUS, but unfortunately, as the winds periodically changes, so do beliefs. A conservative or liberal leaning judge, as appointed, may not remain so over time. It certainly is not perfect, but it is the best we've been able to come up with.
Not for those that can read and comprehend, it isn't. Nice try, though!They are pro-socialist, which is just as bad as fascism. I'm anti-both.
Actually, I have. And the writers of the federalist papers considered the militia as the best way to keep the country free, but felt that the amount of training need to be "well regulated" would disrupt too many lives and advocated for smaller militias rather than a large one (such as a standing army) that the federal government could call up should the need arise (specifically Madison, Federalist Papers #29) The anti-federalist papers did not want to give the federal government control over the state militias for fear the larger government could use those militias in tyrannical ways. And they were right. The federal government HAS used federal forces against its own population many times.
People have argued that this invalidates the idea that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms, however that is nonsensical. Yes, the 18th century idea of a militia included membership into a state militia, however they also understood that if the need arises average citizens could join a militia at any time and would need their own firearms and be proficient in their use. That is why the Heller case won in its SCOTUS case.
Here is a good article, with quotes from James Madison, that ties it all together.
According to the Founders, all federal gun restrictions are unconstitutional
The notion that the federal government has the power to impose gun-control laws is an invention of the 20th century.thehill.com
Um, no. The research you are looking at (I know, because I've looked as well) includes homicides and suicides. DC is the number one for gun homicides per capita. The top 10 includes 4 blue states with strict gun laws. The actual cause of the high gun murders is the rate of poverty combined with population density. When you have a high concentration of low income in a high population density, you have more crime and more murders by firearms. The only difference is in states with less gun laws you have more of a mix between criminal homicide and justifiable homicide (both are considered homicides in the states but are, indeed, quite different). This is proven when you compare cities that have the highest population of people below the poverty line to the respective crime rates. All, including homicide (of which a firearm is used statistically in 3/4th of all homicide), are higher when poverty is higher.
So the problem is not with lax gun laws, its a social economical issue. Gun control will not fix that. It never has and never will.
So, your argument for gun control is flawed. Plain and simple.
Someone write a bill...
Making democrat political scum and their voters...take in paying expenses for a ILLEGAL FAMILY, with extended members ...or four single illegal males,....
...also they have to live without guns,...or police protection.
...if they say No,....they are racist.
.
Making democrat political scum and their voters...take in paying expenses for a ILLEGAL FAMILY, with extended members ...or four single illegal males,....
...also they have to live without guns,...or police protection.
...if they say No,....they are racist.
.
I highly doubt you can match my reading and comprehension levels, nice try though. Especially when you offered no counter argument, no links, no facts, and especially no proof. You just decided to insult my intelligence as if that proves your point.
Well, let me say if you believe in gun control, you are an outright ******* *****. Have a nice day
Similar threads
