Guns, Guns Guns

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:No law can prohibit it's own repeal.

Where do you get that idea, yes it can , and does.

No it can't, and no it doesn't.

Saying a law can prohibit it's own repeal is the same thing as saying any given body passing a law has the ability to exercise veto power over all future decisions made by the citizens of the nation. They may never again decide for themselves what they want to do on a topic, the writers of the law at this time forbid it. Your rights of self determination on whatever topic we decide to make an "un-repealable" law are hereby FOREVER revoked.

And NOBODY has that power in the United States. Not the Founders and not anybody else. The very idea that they do is absurd. You would be laughed out of any courtroom in the country for even suggesting it.


Even E's example from Germany of an "eternity clause" isn't really un-repealable, it just makes the repeal process have to clear a far higher hurdle. In short, completely scrapping the entire legal foundation of the nation and starting over from scratch. But they COULD still do that if the citizens of Germany collectively decided that's what they wanted to do.


Law that can't be repealed? No. Such. Thing.

MAD-4A wrote:you mean "enforcing tax ales" that aren't enforced on other organizations, such as ACORN or the (so-called) ACLU? hmmm why weren't they effected? maybe because they are ultra left wing socialists?

I sincerely have no idea what you're even talking about here or what point you think you're making.

MAD-4A wrote:Do you even know how laws are made? You seem to think that "the citizens" make up some "law" and poof there it is. Amendments are made by ... uhmm ... who ??? that would be Congress. THEY make up a "Bill", then THEY pass it and THEN it gets ratified by the states and becomes an Amendment. "the citizens" have nothing to do with it.

Oh? Who does Congress work for?


Oops, guess the citizens have everything to do with it don't they?

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Can congress by itself amend the Constitution? No, it cannot. So the clause, Congress shall make no law, means just that the laws Congress can make. That clause does not stipulate any actions taken by the sovereign citizens of this country. It does in no way restrict the citizens from changing the Constitution itself. If you believe it does, then review the 10th.

While the 2A does restrict any laws congress can make by itself, the 2A cannot restrict the sovereign citizen from amending the Constitution as allowed by the Constitution itself. This document is meant to define how sovereignty is kept in the hands of the citizenry after all.

Do you even know how laws are made? You seem to think that "the citizens" make up some "law" and poof there it is. Amendments are made by ... uhmm ... who ??? that would be Congress. THEY make up a "Bill", then THEY pass it and THEN it gets ratified by the states and becomes an Amendment. "the citizens" have nothing to do with it. And the act of Congress passing a bill for the purpose of repealing the 2nd Amendment would in itself be an act of Congress passing a LAW for the purpose of INFRINGING ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS, whether you want it to be or not.

Amendments are proposed by either congress or a Constitutional convention. They are ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures or 3/4 of the state at the convention. Congress CANNOT propose and ratify Amendments to the Constitution. No law it passes can supersede the Constitution. All it can do is propose Amendments for the States' legislatures to ratify or reject. Congress cannot Amend the Constitution. Period. That authority resides in the States and the people.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

Gadzooks! Must I use emoticons?!? I hate the boogers! I was being sarcastic, MAD-4A.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The FBI and DOJ looked into it and found no wrong doing.

oh, yea, that's right, they did ... hmmm 2 organizations headed by people appointed by the same liberal Dictato...I mean leader, who appointed the head of the other one? hmm ... nothing funny there, I'm sure.

The E wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:this is just complete and utter lying socialist crap. I don't know where you heard it from but they lied to you. 1at it isn't the US right who are trying to take over, they are the ones trying to keep the power in the hands of the people.

... By putting it in the small-fingered hands of an insecure liar and hypocrite who has already said that he would be willing to violate not only the Geneva Convention on warfare, but also weaken the protections of the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people who call him out on his bullshit?

Please tell me there's some element to this idiocy I'm missing here.

It's the ultra Hillary leftist socialist pinkos that are trying to take away the peoples rights and establish a socialist dictatorship. And the biggest proof of they leftist lies is that the Tea Party is NOT right wing at all. That was always leftist propaganda lies from the beginning. The whole point of the Tea Party is that is dead center, ULTRA MODERATE it is neither left nor right. there are members who are both slightly right AND slightly left, in it and anyone who tells you different, you tell them, they are a liar! plain and simple.

There sure are a lot of Democrats on this list.

You have to understand the bizarre alternate reality that is the US political landscape due to the two party dynamic... where "left" and "right" have ceased having any kind of objective meaning and have instead simply come to be used as shorthand for "wherever the Democrats and Republicans are at the moment".

So to the average US voter the full range of the political spectrum always looks like this no matter what the two parties are doing:




All the Democrats are "left".... all the Republicans are "right"... and halfway between them is the "centrist" or "moderate" position.

While to most of the planet who actually understand that "left" and "right" descriptions of political ideologies actually have some meaning beyond just saying what the two American political party want today, the political affiliations of US politicians look more like this:




So while to any objective observer the Tea Party is WAY right, to a lot of US conservative voters their goalposts for "right and "left: have migrated so far to the right that almost the entire ideological spectrum of political thought is "left" as far as they're concerned. I mean look at MAD calling people like Clinton "socialist pinkos". CLINTON. Darling candidate of Wall St firmly in the pocket of corporate interests. Solidly right on economic policy. As far as people like MAD are concerned, basically a communist.

Yeeesh.

To the people of Turkey, I share the grief and pain in this time of pain and mourning. To the radical Islamists or should I just say Terrorists, a pox upon your house.

This article caught my eye!http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-blast-witness-idUSKCN0ZE2QG?mod=related&channelName=worldNews
If this is true, I honor the dead hero cop or armed security guard!

MAD-4A wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Seriously, just how stupid ...

(ignored rest)

But of course you did. Proving me right.

Can´t read something that might be dangerous to your delusions and indoctrination, oh no, that´s just Evil Commie propaganda TM.

Seriously, get a grip.


More and more it seems Trump isn´t an exception but rather an expression of USAs decline in average mental health.

No law can prohibit it's own repeal.

Where do you get that idea, yes it can , and does.

Reality called, but apparently you were too far out to be reached.

You really don´t have a clue how laws work do you...

No, Hitler was appointed, then he exceeded his authority to illegally force others in power out and changed the rules as he went along.

Please DO tell us all how it really happened!

They did not have the support of the majority, they had the support of a very vocal and violent minority, who bullied the majority into inaction.

They had the direct support of somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3, and the support of the political representatives of the conservatives and the liberals, which together provided an easy majority.

this is just complete and utter lying socialist crap. I don't know where you heard it from but they lied to you.

You are sadly hilarious when you keep showing off your ignorance.

It's the ultra Hillary leftist socialist pinkos that are trying to take away the peoples rights and establish a socialist dictatorship.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Seriously delusional.

And the biggest proof of they leftist lies is that the Tea Party is NOT right wing at all.

You call that proof? When you can just randomly pick a hundred tea party supporters, and 80+ of them will be blatantly right wing.

The whole point of the Tea Party is that is dead center, ULTRA MODERATE it is neither left nor right. there are members who are both slightly right AND slightly left, in it and anyone who tells you different, you tell them, they are a liar! plain and simple.

PeterZ wrote:
Amendments are proposed by either congress or a Constitutional convention. They are ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures or 3/4 of the state at the convention. Congress CANNOT propose and ratify Amendments to the Constitution. No law it passes can supersede the Constitution. All it can do is propose Amendments for the States' legislatures to ratify or reject. Congress cannot Amend the Constitution. Period. That authority resides in the States and the people.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

*sigh*

Yes, and if an amendment is made that says the constitution is no longer valid, then that is a perfectly legal and correct way to get rid of the constitution.

Tenshinai wrote:
[Snip Quote]

*sigh*

Yes, and if an amendment is made that says the constitution is no longer valid, then that is a perfectly legal and correct way to get rid of the constitution.

Yes and at the same time the government would have no legitimate existence as all offices would be invalid. Not that it is like to pass the required number of State legislators.

A Constitutional convention could be called, but again any proposed Amendments are suggestions to the States to vote up or down in their legislatures.

Poker,