Are you saying the referendum process in several states is seditious? What gives you that idea? -- Read the above for 'what I said'; defending unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo. ..
State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment, are they not?
I see you use the term 'bridled". Then use the US Constitution as the governor. I agree.
Fine, we agree that State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment.
Laws restricting smoking are either "bridled" of"unbridled". If you feel they are implemented "unbridled" then take it to court. You can challenge the process or the outcome, or both. But until you win in court or the sphere of public opinion (i.e. ballot) box you cannot say smoking laws are illegal.
Wrong.. I can say that, just as Marshall said that in Marbury. -- 'Laws' repugnant to our Constitution are null & void from the minute they are enacted. -- Are you sure you got a "A" in constitutional law?
You may not like them, and I support your position to challenge them, but it is a political choice. The concept that smoke is an unbridgeable right is bunk.
Smoking is not protected in the Constitution.
Unenumerated rights are protected in the Constitutions 9th.. You're wrong again; - grade "F".
Are you saying a political movement that would champion an amendment to the US Constitution to implement a national referendum would be sedition?
If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?
Nope, if it was political.
You proposed a political amendment, not me. Now you say "if"? -- How weird.
I say the rights we have come from good sense and the Constitution.
I say our rights are self evident & inalienable. -- They do not "come from" the constitution. - Another "F".
I do not believe "individual rights" are absolute and neither do you. Do you?
Of course not. - Not that this will stop you from your sermon about "if you do":
If you do you have a problem with consistency.
Is your right to property superior my right to building codes? property taxes? confiscation? Is your right to life mean there cannot be a death penalty? Does you right to liberty include your right to walk down the street blasting a boom box at 4Am? We are a society of laws. And people have the right to lobby for any law.
You cannot support some individual rights and not others. Unless you have a system of laws.
I've never posted otherwise.
I think the supreme right is the right for citizens to make and change the law. This includes amending the Constitution. One thing for sure. We have building codes and safety codes and other common good regulations.
Yep, we have far too many such 'regs', -- in good part due to lawyers just like you, imo.
Have you ever heard of CA Prop 13? Are you opposed?
I worked and voted for it. Nothing in prop 13 violates human rights. - Can you agree?
You are impossible. That is a good thing. Taking the moral certainty is why we beat you. Will keep happening. You argue like a dem.
"Wrong.. I can say that, just as Marshall said that in Marbury. -- 'Laws' repugnant to our Constitution are null & void from the minute they are enacted. -- Are you sure you got a "A" in constitutional law?"
Unless you are a member of SCOTUS. Your opinion of what is constitutional and what is not is just that - an opinion. I saw laws banning smoking in the work place are Constitutional. You may say otherwise but I see no the Court agreeing with me. You have the right to challenge whoever you choose. What has Marshall's antecedents said about my right to enact FL Amendment Six? Nothing so it MUST be Constitutional using your logic.
"Unenumerated rights are protected in the Constitutions 9th.. " But smoking is not a right enumerated or not...See above. You may declare a moral right to smoke but you have no specific evidence you have a Constitutional Right.
"Are you saying the referendum process in several states is seditious?
What gives you that idea? -- Read the above for 'what I said'; defending unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo. ..
State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment, are they not?
I see you use the term 'bridled". Then use the US Constitution as the governor. I agree.
Fine, we agree that State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment.
Laws restricting smoking are either "bridled" of"unbridled". If you feel they are implemented "unbridled" then take it to court. You can challenge the process or the outcome, or both. But until you win in court or the sphere of public opinion (i.e. ballot) box you cannot say smoking laws are illegal.
Wrong.. I can say that, just as Marshall said that in Marbury. -- 'Laws' repugnant to our Constitution are null & void from the minute they are enacted. -- Are you sure you got a "A" in constitutional law?
You may not like them, and I support your position to challenge them, but it is a political choice. The concept that smoke is an unbridgeable right is bunk.
Smoking is not protected in the Constitution.
Unenumerated rights are protected in the Constitutions 9th.. You're wrong again; - grade "F".
Are you saying a political movement that would champion an amendment to the US Constitution to implement a national referendum would be sedition?
If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?
Nope, if it was political.
You proposed a political amendment, not me. Now you say "if"? -- How weird.
I say the rights we have come from good sense and the Constitution.
"I say our rights are self evident & inalienable. -- They do not "come from" the constitution. - Another "F". Bizarre and egotistical. You do not have the right to say what my rights are.
Are you saying the referendum process in several states is seditious?
What gives you that idea? -- Read the above for 'what I said'; defending unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo. ..
State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment, are they not?
I see you use the term 'bridled". Then use the US Constitution as the governor. I agree.
Fine, we agree that State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment.
Laws restricting smoking are either "bridled" of"unbridled". If you feel they are implemented "unbridled" then take it to court. You can challenge the process or the outcome, or both. But until you win in court or the sphere of public opinion (i.e. ballot) box you cannot say smoking laws are illegal.
Wrong.. I can say that, just as Marshall said that in Marbury. -- 'Laws' repugnant to our Constitution are null & void from the minute they are enacted. -- Are you sure you got a "A" in constitutional law?
You may not like them, and I support your position to challenge them, but it is a political choice. The concept that smoke is an unbridgeable right is bunk.
Smoking is not protected in the Constitution.
Unenumerated rights are protected in the Constitutions 9th.. You're wrong again; - grade "F".
Are you saying a political movement that would champion an amendment to the US Constitution to implement a national referendum would be sedition?
If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?
Nope, if it was political.
You proposed a political amendment, not me. Now you say "if"? -- How weird.
I say the rights we have come from good sense and the Constitution.
I say our rights are self evident & inalienable. -- They do not "come from" the constitution. - Another "F".
" in good part due to lawyers just like you,"
Another crazy FReeplusion. You have to stop that. Who said I was a lawyer? HAH LOL
In any case when it comes to declaring a constitutional right to smoke or invalidating the initiative process you loose. Your attitude costs you votes. You need all you can get.