Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree119Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 30th, 2016, 09:22 AM   #101
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
I can't answer for Jimmyb. If he was telling you the protestant religion was the dominate religion at that time he would be correct. I'd have to read his post to answer your questions. But, I have never seen a post by Jimmyb that wasn't factually correct.
Jimmy B has on at least two occasions stated that the first amendment was put in place SOLELY for the protection of the protestant religions. Catholics Jews and anyone else go F themselves.

He also insists the the constitution does NOT apply at the state level. According to him, your rights ONLY APPLY when you're being investigated or arrested by FEDERAL law enforcement. According to him your state is free to set up all the state sponsored religion it wants. It can shut down the newspapers and media outlets it disagrees with. And you of course have ZERO rights under the fourth or fifth amendments unless your state has similar language in it's constitution.
Thanks from RNG
BubbaJones is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 09:51 AM   #102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Oregon
Posts: 806
I find it humorous some are saying ...If Obama had been the Dem candidate he would have won. He campaigned hard for Hillary stating she would continue "his" policies and he was rejected.
goodpen is online now  
Old December 30th, 2016, 10:49 AM   #103
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodpen View Post
I find it humorous some are saying ...If Obama had been the Dem candidate he would have won. He campaigned hard for Hillary stating she would continue "his" policies and he was rejected.
NO, Hillary was rejected. She was a weak candidate to start and the whole email scandal hurt. Even though most of it was rumor and innuendo with damnably little real proof, even after exhaustive investigations, people chose to believe the scandals. And a lot of Dems just didn't like her and didn't like her and the DNC screwing Bernie.

A lot of voters just stayed home. Even though Hillary got 2.8 million more votes than Trump, she received about 2 million less than Obama in 2012. Trump in contrast was only slightly ahead of Romney in Republican votes. In other words Trump won because democratic voters stayed home.

There's little doubt had the Dems run almost anybody else, Trump would have had a very hard time winning. I think Bernie would have done well against Trump, and Obama would have almost certainly left him in the dust.

This wasn't a wholesale rejection of Obama and his policies, nor was it a tidal wave of support for Trump. 2 Million democrats just stayed home. Many of them in swing states.

Last edited by BubbaJones; December 30th, 2016 at 10:52 AM.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 11:14 AM   #104
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Based on whose opinion of what the original intent was?

Who is your chief mind reader?
Original intent is found in the argumentation. Anyone reading the argument should understand the intent. If you don't, your adding your personal opinion. If it does not coincide with original intent, then it's nothing more than a subversion. A good example is the 14th Amendment. If you read the argumentation of the original intent you then can understand how the Court has corrupted it. The argumentation is clear and concise. It was the Court that took it out of original intent and molded it to fit their personal opinions.
caconservative is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 11:20 AM   #105
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
Original intent is found in the argumentation. Anyone reading the argument should understand the intent. If you don't, your adding your personal opinion. If it does not coincide with original intent, then it's nothing more than a subversion. A good example is the 14th Amendment. If you read the argumentation of the original intent you then can understand how the Court has corrupted it. The argumentation is clear and concise. It was the Court that took it out of original intent and molded it to fit their personal opinions.
Except it is only your opinion as to what the argumentation means.

As I and many others have said, I will trust the opinion of the justices of the SC over anonymous internet posters with obvious bias.
Thanks from Daws77
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 11:21 AM   #106
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Jimmy B has on at least two occasions stated that the first amendment was put in place SOLELY for the protection of the protestant religions. Catholics Jews and anyone else go F themselves.

He also insists the the constitution does NOT apply at the state level. According to him, your rights ONLY APPLY when you're being investigated or arrested by FEDERAL law enforcement. According to him your state is free to set up all the state sponsored religion it wants. It can shut down the newspapers and media outlets it disagrees with. And you of course have ZERO rights under the fourth or fifth amendments unless your state has similar language in it's constitution.
Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government.
caconservative is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 11:27 AM   #107
Banned
 
Daws77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Posts: 7,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
Original intent is found in the argumentation. Anyone reading the argument should understand the intent. If you don't, your adding your personal opinion. If it does not coincide with original intent, then it's nothing more than a subversion. A good example is the 14th Amendment. If you read the argumentation of the original intent you then can understand how the Court has corrupted it. The argumentation is clear and concise. It was the Court that took it out of original intent and molded it to fit their personal opinions.
Your interpretation is subjective and biased.
None of you clowns have ever explained why your version of original intent is more beneficial to the most people than then current living document?
Daws77 is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 11:37 AM   #108
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Except it is only your opinion as to what the argumentation means.

As I and many others have said, I will trust the opinion of the justices of the SC over anonymous internet posters with obvious bias.
You can believe anything you want to. Obviously that is what your doing. The SC continued corruption of the Constitution can be found easily if you read the original arguments. But, you actually have to read them. Not just post an opinion without regard for the facts. The Court tells us the "equal protection" clause found in the 14th Amendment can be interpreted to fit any situation the Court needs it to fit. The truth is, the 14th Amendment applied only to newly freed-slaves, and ONLY, newly freed-slaves. In affect, the Court legislated law from the bench! And then has built on that corruption in later cases.
caconservative is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 11:48 AM   #109
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daws77 View Post
Your interpretation is subjective and biased.
None of you clowns have ever explained why your version of original intent is more beneficial to the most people than then current living document?
The actual interpretation of any particular segment of the Constitution is bolstered by argumentation that tells you exactly what that segment intended. It is not subjective. The intent is clear and concise. There is no such thing as a "living-document". It says what it says without ambiguity. It has been the Courts use of "legal fiction" to mold the Constitution to fit their personal opinions that is at issue. The Court, in its attempt to expand its power has made the Constitution subjective.
caconservative is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 12:46 PM   #110
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
You can believe anything you want to. Obviously that is what your doing. The SC continued corruption of the Constitution can be found easily if you read the original arguments. But, you actually have to read them. Not just post an opinion without regard for the facts. The Court tells us the "equal protection" clause found in the 14th Amendment can be interpreted to fit any situation the Court needs it to fit. The truth is, the 14th Amendment applied only to newly freed-slaves, and ONLY, newly freed-slaves. In affect, the Court legislated law from the bench! And then has built on that corruption in later cases.
Except for the minor detail that there is NOTHING in the language of the 14th Amendment that says it only applies to newly freed slaves.

The Amendment is to be interpreted AS IT IS WRITTEN. We don't need to be mind readers to determine what the people ratifying the Amendment thought it meant. (In fact there were so many people involved in ratifying the Amendment that it would be impossible to know what all of them were thinking or what even a majority of them were thinking).

You don't like what the 14th Amendment SAYS, then arrange to amend it by amending the Constitution.
Thanks from RNG and Daws77
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
nominees, supreme court, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump will uphold the Constitution? Not so fast. Nwolfe35 Politicians 16 August 2nd, 2016 09:09 PM
Two More GOP States Pass Laws Nullifying The Constitution skews13 Current Events 124 March 29th, 2016 04:49 PM
Good Cop: Watch Policeman Uphold Constitution, Prevent Citizens from Being Searched & LongWinded Current Events 0 July 12th, 2015 03:13 PM
Religious "Leaders" Demand Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From Marriage Equality skews13 Current Events 384 May 7th, 2015 08:23 PM
Justices uphold 'material support' terror law CNN Current Events 1 June 21st, 2010 05:07 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.