I wonder at what point the kool-aid drinkers will finally see the light and see Obama for who he really is. But probably by that time our form of government and our way of life will be so far gone it won't even matter anymore.
don't you realize that "we" lost. you must not have any opposing opinions whatsoever. just line up for the firmware update.I wonder at what point the kool-aid drinkers will finally see the light and see Obama for who he really is. But probably by that time our form of government and our way of life will be so far gone it won't even matter anymore.
It's not our fault you can't think of any real examples.
I had hoped that you could provide me a long and detailed list. I obviously had unrealistic expectations.
I'd be interested in knowing either: (1) where the Cons ution speaks of the qualifications of one who might be appointed as chief legal counsel for the US to serve in international issues (or what that position actually is); or (2) where the Cons ution says that American law should govern with regard to international legal disputes.
I realize that it's really tempting to argue that Obama's pinko tendencies are as bad as they could possibly be and that encapsulating that notion for the masses is easily accomplished by coloring them as uncons utional. But the problem with arguing that something is uncons utional is this meddling requirement that it actually be contrary to the express language of the Cons ution or the legally-accepted constructions of its terms.
While I don't think Obama is any more "socialist" than his predecessor in bailouts, Herr Bush, I don't know that the Cons ution would forbid either from undertaking sweeping socialist reforms in matters of social policy -- particularly if Congress passed laws in support thereof. It might be unpalatable to voters (including me), but it wouldn't actually be uncons utional.
Depends on the situation. Is it still less than 32 degrees outside?
al gore will tell you it isn't.Depends on the situation. Is it still less than 32 degrees outside?
Toucheal gore will tell you it isn't.
assaults weapon ban. second ammendment
Do you already have a place to store your bazooka and your howitzer?
wow, snarky aren't we.
Why not an f22 and a tank , brilliance?
Speculative, but it does look likely.
Similarly, it is not yet known to a legal certainty whether the 2nd Amendment covers arms yet to be designated "dangerous or unusual", but after Holder signs point to no. We'll see.
Given your second amendment concerns, I don't see how you can complain with anyone wanting to purchase one.
Also, you should be allowed to stand on a public street corner and yell obscenities all day, as well as post up naked pictures of yourself. First amendment!
Wrong. The intent of the 2nd ammendment was for the citizens to be able to protect themselves from an oppressive govt. at that time that gap in weaponry between a soldier and a civilian was pretty small. It was rifle vs rifle. Now it's large. It's an M60 or tank gun vs a glock.
the principle is, that the citizens are allowed to have whatever weapons possible to protect themselves from an attack.
Would the founding fathers want non-landowners to posses nuclear missiles?
The first was intended to protect political speech, rights of assembly and ideas, aswell as protecting the right of exercising religion.Given your second amendment concerns, I don't see how you can complain with anyone wanting to purchase one.
Also, you should be allowed to stand on a public street corner and yell obscenities all day, as well as post up naked pictures of yourself. First amendment!
Nudity, is not what they had in mind nor inflammatory language.
I'm sorry your ignorant and you fail at using worthy examples.
I already knew you were going there. and unless it could be possible to nuke 10 acres of land, either party will see it useless to fight each other since they both share the same land.
So..Um dumb question,.. unless a nucleur missile could only kill off govt people and not destroy other civilians, i don't see the point.
The founding fathers still wanted to have and advantage for the govt since they need to restore order, but they didn't see it wrong that citizens were given a fair chance to defend themselves.
the US has always been much larger than ten acres, so dumb answer.
You mean the founding fathers were this selective in determining what future arms coudl be considered? Again, dumb answer.So..Um dumb question,.. unless a nucleur missile could only kill off govt people and not destroy other civilians, i don't see the point.
Why wouldn't nukes be fair? Do we not use them as a deterrent and therefore a defense?The founding fathers still wanted to have and advantage for the govt since they need to restore order, but they didn't see it wrong that citizens were given a fair chance to defend themselves.
Tanks?
Assault helicopters?
Could black people be allowed to own only 3/5 of a gun?
I'm sure there is a scenario or two in the military where nukes are used on US soil.
A single person can use a tank or helicopter.
A single person can fire a missile.
Here's another example: the 10th amendment - which addresses state's rights.
Congress wrote a stipulation into the porkulus bill that says state assemblies can bypass the governor and take the stimulus money, even if the Governor refuses it.
That is uncons utional! The powers given to the FEDERAL government are specific and enumerated in the 10th amendment - overriding state governments under these cir stances is not one!
But that wouldn't be the federal government overriding the state government, it would be the state legislature overriding the state executive.
If there is an actual current court case over that issue, I'd like to see it.
Actually, it would be the federal gov't overriding a state cons ution set up with its own checks and balances. Each state has their way of governing and the federal gov't can't just come in and change things.
As far as an actual court case - since the stimulus money is just now being distributed, there hasn't been time for a challenge.
Possbile. I'm fine with the courts deciding that one.
If there has been one legal business day since it has been introduced, there has been time for a challenge. If they choose to wait until one of the posturing Republican governors is overriden, that's fine too.As far as an actual court case - since the stimulus money is just now being distributed, there hasn't been time for a challenge.
You need to re-read the Second Amendment (or er), since it ties the right to bear arms directly to the need for a well-regulated militia:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So tanks and helicopters for everyone, no?
And you fail at reading. I said nothing about being nude. I said yelling obscenities (freedom of speech!) and putting up nude pictures of myself (freedom of ideas!).
Or are you saying that pictures of nude people should be against the law now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote