Skip to comments.
The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing
TooGood Reports ^
| 13 November 2003
| Lee R Shelton IV
Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 45Auto
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720, 721-725 next last
To: tpaine
It is precisely your OPINION that I have demonstrated ignorance of the Constitution. Generally my opponents in debate concede my knowledge and put down disagreements as my willful perversity or dishonesty. Of course, your other red herring is my "mental state."
I won't get into the process of "projection" which appears to be in action here.
681
posted on
11/25/2003 7:14:30 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
A USSC decision is NEVER "null and void" until another USSC decision says so. What IS "null and void" is your opinion of a Court decision.
--Read the below, and weep for your obstinate ignorance:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged."
Source: 1 Cranch 137 (1803
Justice Marshall
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
682
posted on
11/25/2003 12:31:29 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: tpaine
And it is ONLY the USSC which can make that decision just as it did in this case. Marshall was the Chief Justice of the USSC not some clown wandering down the street.
683
posted on
11/25/2003 12:52:21 PM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
- it is ONLY the USSC which can make that decision --
Not true.
It is a ~principle~ that 'a law repugnant to the constitution is void; --- all courts are bound by that principle, thus they can't make a 'decision' to ignore or modify it.
They can only decide if it is violated.
The assault weapons ban unquestionably violates the 2nd.
Why do you support the man that supports the ban?
684
posted on
11/25/2003 2:52:17 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: tpaine
Final determination of "unconstitutionality" rests with the USSC. Court rulings up until then are provisional. No court has ruled this law unconstitutional therefore it is NOT no matter what YOU think.
Bush is the ONLY conservative with ANY chance of being elected in today's America as opposed to the Land of Delusions those lambasting him seem to live in.
685
posted on
11/26/2003 10:02:12 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
The assault weapons ban unquestionably violates the 2nd.
Why do you support the man that supports the ban?
684 tpaine
"-- No court has ruled this law unconstitutional -- "
685 -jsuati-
Case made.
You think the AWB is constitutional.
686
posted on
11/26/2003 3:49:10 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: tpaine
Until the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional it is constitutional.
687
posted on
12/02/2003 7:22:29 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Final determination of "unconstitutionality" rests with the USSC. Nope. The ultimate determinant is the cartridge box. The legistlature can pass laws in secrecy all they want, and the courts can rule 'till they're blue, but eventually they will come up against the "cold dead fingers" provision of the Constitutional Republic.
To: Rocky Mountain High
If Bush signs the AW ban, this I either won't vote for a Presidential candiate, or I'll vote for the Libertine, uh, Libertarian candidate. Ain't no point in votin' for a Republican if acts like a Democrat. I've been a good little Bush supporter, but he has allowed Congress to swell the Federal budget with idiocies like the farm bill, the education bill and the drugs-for-old-farts bill. Tax cuts are not going to mean very much at the rate Congresscritters are spendin'.
689
posted on
12/02/2003 7:42:04 AM PST
by
Little Ray
(When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
To: Jim Cane
The USSC is one of the major elements of said Constitutional Republic, perhaps you never noticed. The rest of your silly raving is not worth comment.
690
posted on
12/02/2003 9:06:08 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
justshutupandtakeit wrote: Until the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional it is constitutional.
Not true.
It is a ~principle~ that 'a law repugnant to the constitution is void;
--- all courts are bound by that principle, thus they can't make a 'decision' to ignore or modify it.
They can only decide if it is violated.
The assault weapons ban unquestionably violates the 2nd.
Why do you support the man that supports the ban?
691
posted on
12/02/2003 9:14:13 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
The rest of your silly raving is not worth comment. Apparently it was, twinkie pie.
To: Jim Cane
It is dangerous to indulge in Fantasy History though it might make you feel good temporarily. Threatening the Court is a violation of this Forum's policies as well.
693
posted on
12/02/2003 10:04:20 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
[The legistlature can pass laws in secrecy all they want, and the courts can rule 'till they're blue, but eventually they will come up against the "cold dead fingers" provision of the Constitutional Republic.]
It is dangerous to indulge in Fantasy History though it might make you feel good temporarily. Threatening the Court is a violation of this Forum's policies as well.
You seem to lack the ability to differentiate between drawing a line in the sand and making a "threat". You are also unfamiliar with the 2nd Amendment and the reason[s] for it's place of prominence in the BOR.
I feel sorry for you - fearing freedom and hushing the story of how it became a reality as a dangerous fantasy.
Better not post back, the folks in black helicoptors are reading your words (and thoughts), and if you say the wrong thing, or it becomes known that you're conversing with a right winger like me, why...you'll be taken away in the night.
To: Jim Cane
I am very familiar with the Constitution and its origin. None of that history demonstrates that the representative democracy it set up was or is a "tyrant." The Founders distrusted power but they established a nation designed to avoid tyranny since it was to be responsive to the citizens and could be changed through the amendment process.
It has worked admirably for over two hundred yrs. One of the reasons it has worked so well is the USSC.
Apparently you have a problem understanding the plain words of the 2d amendment which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is to allow the people to be armed and available for militia duty since "A well regulated militia, [is necessary] to the security of a Free STATE." This is clearly inconvenient to the arguments of those believing the 2d was designed to be used AGAINST the US government. It never was intended that way.
Militias were of use against the Indians but not much else as a short review of American military history would show you. Militias were to be REGULATED by the states; they weren't a bunch of kooks playing war games in the woods with the boys.
I have NO fear of freedom only of the shortsighted and ignorant who want to ignore parts of the constitution which don't suit them while claiming to be patriots. THEY are indeed dangerous to true freedom.
Rather than making vague and absurd accusations why don't you tell everyone where I have EVER "hushed" ANY fact of American history or any fact whatsoever.
695
posted on
12/02/2003 12:20:45 PM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Rather than making vague and absurd accusations why don't you tell everyone where I have EVER "hushed" ANY fact of American history or any fact whatsoever. You accused me of violating this forum's rules (which I didn't) as far as making threats is concerned. I did violate them in regard to personal attacks - calling you a twinkie pie (which you are). You hoped to silence me, via admin moderator, and now misrepresent the clear meaning of the second amendment - highlighting [state] yet clearly oblivious to it's qualifier [FREE].
According to the Constitution, the federal government's powers are enumerated and few. The rights of the states and the people themselves are expansive.
Falling under the umbrella of the 9th and 10th amendments are those God given rights outlined in a document equal to the USC.
[When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- ]
The right of armed rebellion against tyranny is spelled out for you right there.
What do you think an armed citizenry is going to do if and when statist nutjobs like yourself decide that the rest of us can't be trusted with our God given rights?
Actually, I don't care what you think. This is the line. Here and no farther.
To: Jim Cane
I have never brought the moderator into ANY discussion I have been involved in and care not that you called me a name. While it is inaccurate I don't care about that. As for your assumption that I was attempting to silence you that is merely false. Reminding you of something is not the same thing. You can make all the implied threats you wish and I will never call them to the moderator's attention. They do make FR look like a looney's gathering place but such is the price of freedom.
There was certainly no "misrepresentation" of the 2d's meaning by pointing to the actual words within it. It clearly states that the reason for a militia and an armed population is to bring security to a free state not for any other purpose. But accuracy and truth mean nothing to ideologues.
There is certainly nothing in the 9th and 10th amendment which "equals" the USSC. Since the Court can determine what those amendments apply to they are subordinate to it.
Nor is there any doubt that the Constitution gives the federal government extensive powers. None of the founders doubted that there were implied powers as well (not even Jefferson.) If you really care about this point read Hamilton's essay on the constitutionality of the National Bank. Though I am sure you don't and won't.
A quote from the Declaration is not going to change the powers of the Court. Nor does it demonstrate any "despotism" to revolt against. Unless you believe the people should revolt against themselves since they are the creators of the free state discussed in the 2d.
Whackos are not going to change anything about this government and have little impact on anything except themselves.
697
posted on
12/02/2003 2:52:16 PM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: 45Auto
bttt
698
posted on
01/30/2004 12:56:29 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Most people have no basis for interpreting it anyway as it is far beyond understanding without close study. I just saw this in the archives. That's just WRONG there.
The federalist papers(upon which most of the constitution was based) was written so that the citizenry can understand. "with Plain, ordinary understanding" I think was the term used.
699
posted on
01/30/2004 1:02:04 PM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
(Take me down to the paradise city where the grass is green and the girls are pretty. Take me Home)
To: Jim Cane
And Federalist 46 addresses that.
700
posted on
01/30/2004 1:04:24 PM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
(Take me down to the paradise city where the grass is green and the girls are pretty. Take me Home)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720, 721-725 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson