McConnell, GOP Senate brace for Roy Moore

[Cyber Liberty]

The First Amendment says no such thing, so that is a repeated lie.

The others are courts, not the Constitution.

@Jazzhead has stated repeatedly he believes in the primacy of the Courts.  The Constitution is meaningless without the Courts to interpret it for us.

[txradioguy]

That's your opinion; like noses everybody's got 'em.  But the opinions of the Supreme Court are authoritative with respect to the question posed.   That's how things work in this Constitutional Republic.   No laws respecting an establishment of religion. 

Please explain to me how this is an "opinion" or in your own limited vocabulary "bullsh*t".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What is so hard about that for you?

Separation of church and state.  Learn it. Live it. And don't bother me any more with your bullshit.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.  The only one around here that needs to do some learning is you.

[Jazzhead]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? 


This is not an "establishment clause"  insofar as people are wont to suggest it is.   You would have been better off invoking the "religious test" portion of the US Constitution,  but that wouldn't have actually helped your argument either. 


According to the original meaning at the time,  it meant that there would be no Officially Sanctioned State Religion,  insofar as the citizenry would be required to be a member of it or pay tithes to it, or promulgate it's doctrine.   It was a necessary step to prevent the blowing apart of the coalition of states that had different official state religions.   

That the Nation was going to be explicitly Christian was a given,  and implicit in all the founding documents and even in the US Constitution itself,  where it exempts the President from working on Sundays and acknowledges Jesus Christ as "Our Lord"  at the end. 


People keep trying to apply modern feelings to it which were only put into place in the 1940s,  after all the Roosevelt appointed Kook Judges had achieved maximum kookery on the Supreme Court.   




Garbage in,  garbage out.  Court rulings after 1940 are just legal sounding gibberish.   The 14th amendment was created to protect the rights of freed slaves,  not abolish religion in the States.   That is a a deliberate mis-application of the badly written 14th amendment.


What the 14th amendment was not created to do. 


It was not created to make a right to abortion. 

It was not created to ban religion. 

It was not created to make the children of illegal aliens into citizens. 

It was not created to make homosexual acts legal. 

It was not created to rewrite the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution. 

And so forth. 


The 14th amendment is the most bastardized and abused amendment in the Constitution,  and much of the damage can be attributed to how badly it was written,  and how illegally it was passed.

Your opinion is noted, and disregarded as meaningless.   The Supreme Court interprets and construes the laws.  Marbury vs. Madison.   

[Jazzhead]

Please e3xplain to me how this is an "opinion" or in your own limited vocabulary "bullsh*t".

What is so hard about that for you?

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.  The only one around here that needs to do some learning is you.

The Supreme Court I respect.  You I do not. 

Go away.   

[txradioguy]

Your opinion is noted, and disregarded as meaningless.   The Supreme Court interprets and construes the laws.  Marbury vs. Madison.

So now you're for judicial over reach...amazing how the other day you were against it.

Nice to see your situational ethics/beliefs on full display.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't get why people here continue to argue with someone who clearly lacks the ability to read and interpret plain English.

It takes effort to counteract the effect of propagating incorrect ideas.   Some people feel as if it is their duty to do so.

[txradioguy]

The Supreme Court I respect.  You I do not. 

Go away.

What about respect for what is actually in the Constitution?

[Bigun]

Your opinion is noted, and disregarded as meaningless.   The Supreme Court interprets and construes the laws.  Marbury vs. Madison.

Which is itself something made up out of whole cloth by the courts!  Th Constitution grants them no such power!

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead has stated repeatedly he believes in the primacy of the Courts.  The Constitution is meaningless without the Courts to interpret it for us.

The Court has the power and authority under our Constitutional Republic to construe and apply the text of the Constitution.   You can deny that reality, but why is your opinion worthy of respect?   

[RAT Patrol]

Which is itself something made up out of whole cloth by the courts!  Th Constitution grants them no such power!

 

[DiogenesLamp]

Your opinion is noted, and disregarded as meaningless.   The Supreme Court interprets and construes the laws.  Marbury vs. Madison.

Well first of all,  it's more than just my opinion,  it is demonstrably factual.   The modern claims are clearly contradicted by the Presence of official state religions in the States of the US at the time the Constitution was ratified and for decades afterward. 


Secondly,  The final arbiter is the people,  not the courts.   See "Declaration of Independence". 

[DiogenesLamp]

The Supreme Court I respect.  You I do not. 

Go away.

I respect half of it.  The rest are incompetent and/or liars.

[Cyber Liberty]

So now you're for judicial over reach...amazing how the other day you were against it.

Nice to see your situational ethics/beliefs on full display.

There is no such thing as "Judicial Overreach."  If Judges do something, it is by definition "The Law."  </s, /Nixon voice>

[DiogenesLamp]

The Court has the power and authority under our Constitutional Republic to construe and apply the text of the Constitution.   You can deny that reality, but why is your opinion worthy of respect?

So they say.  Both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln told them to go F*** themselves.   Had Eisenhower (with misgivings) not backed them up in the 1950s,  most Americans would have likely told them to go F*** themselves too,  and the power they are currently wielding would not exist. 


They usurped a power they were never given.   

[Cyber Liberty]

The Court has the power and authority under our Constitutional Republic to construe and apply the text of the Constitution.   You can deny that reality, but why is your opinion worthy of respect?

You have repeatedly stated on this thread nobody's opinion is worthy of your respect.  I honestly don't know why you are still posting here, other than to enlighten us rubes.

[endicom]

Hopefully, more can understand why President Trump made a point at the Strange endorsement, that if he lost, that Judge Moore would get his aggressive support.

I think he knew that Strange would lose but wanted to return Strange's support of him. I think that Moore understood what was going on and will act accordingly.

[RoosGirl]

Still waiting on Mxs. Miney and Moe to show up.   ^-^

[driftdiver]

I respect half of it.  The rest are incompetent and/or liars.

@DiogenesLamp

Seeing Ginsberg on tv these last couple days it's obvious she's about 20 cards short of a, full deck.

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

Seeing Ginsberg on tv these last couple days it's obvious she's about 20 cards short of a, full deck.

She is a kook and an imbecile.  So is Sotomayor.  So is the Lou Costello lookalike,  whats-her-name. 


All three of them are affirmative action idiots who only got their positions because they represented check-off boxes on Obama's identity politics list. 


Breyer and Kennedy are just fools.   

[RoosGirl]

@DiogenesLamp

Seeing Ginsberg on tv these last couple days it's obvious she's about 20 cards short of a, full deck.

[INVAR]

But the opinions of the Supreme Court are authoritative with respect to the question posed.

Then Dread-Scott and Prohibition were perfectly good, authoritative decrees in your book. 

That's how things work in this Constitutional Republic. 

I see.  Court precedent by Activists is how you define a "Constitutional Republic" which in reality in your world is no different than a 'People's Republic' in a failed banana state.

Your opinion is noted, and disregarded as meaningless. 

Your opinions here on this board are laughed at and held in contempt and disregarded as Hedonist-Commie Claptrap.

Get a clue or take a hint.

You are simply target practice for us, and we thank you for providing us all here on this board the insipid, silly, stupid, moronic and outright Leftist bullshit argumentation we are crafting our combat skills against.

[XenaLee]

I gotta say, @Jazzhead  ... you are a breath of strange air.

Strange...socialist air.  Which stinks!   

[XenaLee]

From what I can ascertain, she wants the Establishment cadre to succeed in passing Statism and Liberalism as long as it has an "R" after it and Trump can claim a victory.

The fact an actual Conservative with a record of refusing to compromise with Liberalism frightens and angers her, as well as the Establishment Party Hacks.

Nailed it.

[XenaLee]

Dear, decades of compromise have led us to the precipice. Either we stand or we go into the abyss. Already many of the GOP in Congress are to the left of JFK and it is up to Conservatives to obstruct that leftward slide.

You may see that as "obstruction", and you'd be right. It is all that keeps us from being just another Democratik Socialist Republik, and not a Constitutional Republic. Be thankful, and exhort your wayward liberal Republicans to help get this country back on its foundations before it collapses. Failing that, vote the b@stards out.

Exactly.   

[DCPatriot]

Nothing guarantees 'success' in the "REAL world". Nothing. But then, I guess that depends on your definition of "success", too.

Some of us look beyond this world to the promise of the next. We're only here for a little while, and that fifteen seconds of 'fame' really isn't so important. Fame? Fortune? Meh. We'll be there for a lot longer, when this world is done. It isn't what we have here so much, as what we leave behind: ideas, standards, beliefs, wisdom, and a scattering of toys and trinkets as a physical reminder. That I have more than I need is ample blessing.

As far as being a stand-up guy, yep, I value that--especially living in a rural area, and in so being, am an example to all who know me, and the kin who will follow me. I have people who will deal with me on my word and a handshake, and know they won't get screwed--and people I can deal with the same way. Our word is our bond. We save a fortune on lawyers and we all sleep well at night.
I arrived here with little as a younger man, and now my family is housed well, fed, clothed, has transport, and while we don't live in ostentatious luxury, everything is paid for and we don't want for anything, so I consider that 'success'--and I didn't have to screw anyone to get that.

YMMV. @INVAR would be welcome any time, but do come in by the alley, the street is all torn up 'cause the county has a construction crew working on it.

Ah....so he jumped off the street side.    The "damage" is where 'Wiley Coyote' landed.