Sometimes it isn't a matter of whether things should change

[PotimusWillie]

But rather a matter of whether the Federal gov should be involved in the decision making process.

Our Constitution was not written to allow the federal gov jurisdiction over individual states in making laws for the state. The state had the right.

Our country was not designed to have such a lethally potent federal government. State rights were paramount.

We crossed that bridge now and will collapse from it. Our economic system was not designed to carry what we have politically put in place. Our political system is so corrupt in its basic foundation now, money just flows for the vote and power.

And our revision of history is sealing our fate.

It is sad to see how we were created and how we were, to what we are now.

Amazing how shallow, self serving and narsassistic we have become.

Sad

 

[letthebigdogeat]

But rather a matter of whether the Federal gov should be involved in the decision making process.

Our Constitution was not written to allow the federal gov jurisdiction over individual states in making laws for the state. The state had the right.

Our country was not designed to have such a lethally potent federal government. State rights were paramount.

We crossed that bridge now and will collapse from it. Our economic system was not designed to carry what we have politically put in place. Our political system is so corrupt in its basic foundation now, money just flows for the vote and power.

And our revision of history is sealing our fate.

It is sad to see how we were created and how we were, to what we are now.

Amazing how shallow, self serving and narsassistic we have become.

Sad

All someone has to do is really Article 1, Section 8, to conclude that the Federal Government has FAR exceeded its authority. Strangely, this usurping of power started with the Progressive Movement in about 1907. Huh, and wouldn't you know it, we're still fighting these battles. The outcome of allowing the Feds to accumulate this much power is pretty predictable.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Yes we are past the point of where a democracy fails, usually around 200 years. We have exceeded that but we are sliding down the slope of big brother ruling every aspect of our lives. The libs are to ignorant to comprehend the ways of the world when socialist minds run our government.
I have accepted that this is part of Gods plan and must look to him for the answers and protection from the evil leaders of his new world.

 

[whitepug6]

All someone has to do is really Article 1, Section 8, to conclude that the Federal Government has FAR exceeded its authority. Strangely, this usurping of power started with the Progressive Movement in about 1907. Huh, and wouldn't you know it, we're still fighting these battles. The outcome of allowing the Feds to accumulate this much power is pretty predictable.

WRONG AGAIN. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause---Article Six, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

WRONG AGAIN. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause---Article Six, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That's a load of crap and you know it. "Laws made in pursuance of"......of what? Oh yeah, in pursuance of that Constitution thingy. So any law made which is contradictory to that is, on its face, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Good grief! Nice try though.

 

[whitepug6]

That's a load of crap and you know it. "Laws made in pursuance of"......of what? Oh yeah, in pursuance of that Constitution thingy. So any law made which is contradictory to that is, on its face, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Good grief! Nice try though.

WRONG AGAIN. Apparently you are also unfamiliar with the legal doctrine of judicial review. Only the judicial branch, specifically, the federal courts and the US Supreme Court may decide what is, and what is not, unconstitutional.

Serious question: Have you ever taken a political science course before? This is basic poli sci 101 and you do not understand it.

 

[HeulenHund2]

But rather a matter of whether the Federal gov should be involved in the decision making process.

Our Constitution was not written to allow the federal gov jurisdiction over individual states in making laws for the state. The state had the right.

Our country was not designed to have such a lethally potent federal government. State rights were paramount.

We crossed that bridge now and will collapse from it. Our economic system was not designed to carry what we have politically put in place. Our political system is so corrupt in its basic foundation now, money just flows for the vote and power.

And our revision of history is sealing our fate.

It is sad to see how we were created and how we were, to what we are now.

Amazing how shallow, self serving and narsassistic we have become.

Sad

The old ''States' Rights;; dodge.
I suppose The South should have been left alone to end Jim Crow when and if it suited them ?
Thank God or The Fed

But rather a matter of whether the Federal gov should be involved in the decision making process.

Our Constitution was not written to allow the federal gov jurisdiction over individual states in making laws for the state. The state had the right.

Our country was not designed to have such a lethally potent federal government. State rights were paramount.

We crossed that bridge now and will collapse from it. Our economic system was not designed to carry what we have politically put in place. Our political system is so corrupt in its basic foundation now, money just flows for the vote and power.

And our revision of history is sealing our fate.

It is sad to see how we were created and how we were, to what we are now.

Amazing how shallow, self serving and narsassistic we have become.

Sad

The old ''States' Rights'' argument.
It's not about slavery, it's about our right to own slaves.
It's not about racist laws, it's about our right to make those laws,
Please...thank God for The Feds.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

WRONG AGAIN. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause---Article Six, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You sir are the problem with this Country. You're too freaking ignorant to understand what YOU just wrote. The Court just made the Constitution obsolete. You and I have no rights zip zero nadda , we are now at the whim ot what some Harvard northeast lawyer says, Our reps are now nothing more than window dressing, we have no say in how we're governed, And you're to fckng stuipd to understand it

 

[whitepug6]

You sir are the problem with this Country. You're too freaking ignorant to understand what YOU just wrote. The Court just made the Constitution obsolete. You and I have no rights zip zero nadda , we are now at the whim ot what some Harvard northeast lawyer says, Our reps are now nothing more than window dressing, we have no say in how we're governed, And you're to fckng stuipd to understand it

WRONG AS USUAL. I merely cited the Supremacy Clause directly from Article 6, Clause Two.

I do understand the meaning very well, and I will gladly educate you on what it means. It means that the US Constitution, federal laws, and treaties negotiated by the United States government and ratified by the Senate, are the supreme law of the land. Whenever there is a conflict between federal law and a state constitution or state law, the federal law prevails.

Judicial review is an important part of the separation of powers of the three branches of government, my low-information associate. The Supreme Court acts as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches.

Judicial review did not just "happen" with Marbury v. Madison; the authors of the US Constitution intended it from the start. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 that the courts had the power and the duty to review legislation enacted by Congress and executed by the President.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

WRONG AS USUAL. I merely cited the Supremacy Clause directly from Article 6, Clause Two.

I do understand the meaning very well, and I will gladly educate you on what it means. It means that the US Constitution, federal laws, and treaties negotiated by the United States government and ratified by the Senate, are the supreme law of the land. Whenever there is a conflict between federal law and a state constitution or state law, the federal law prevails.

Judicial review is an important part of the separation of powers of the three branches of government, my low-information associate. The Supreme Court acts as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches.

Judicial review did not just "happen" with Marbury v. Madison; the authors of the US Constitution intended it from the start. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 that the courts had the power and the duty to review legislation enacted by Congress and executed by the President.

That's not what they did you morn, the wrote new law and made shit up. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, it's left to the states. They also just changed the definition of marriage that has been held since the beginning . To add to THA, these unelected tyrants rewrote POSOTUScare TWICE
...You freaking moonbat

 

[whitepug6]

That's not what they did you morn, the wrote new law and made shit up. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, it's left to the states. They also just changed the definition of marriage that has been held since the beginning . To add to THA, these unelected tyrants rewrote POSOTUScare TWICE
...You freaking moonbat

WRONG YET AGAIN. The Court did not write new law or make anything up. If you do not understand the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, you shouldn't comment on anything related to it.

 

[conCOCKshon]

But rather a matter of whether the Federal gov should be involved in the decision making process.

Our Constitution was not written to allow the federal gov jurisdiction over individual states in making laws for the state. The state had the right.

Our country was not designed to have such a lethally potent federal government. State rights were paramount.

We crossed that bridge now and will collapse from it. Our economic system was not designed to carry what we have politically put in place. Our political system is so corrupt in its basic foundation now, money just flows for the vote and power.

And our revision of history is sealing our fate.

It is sad to see how we were created and how we were, to what we are now.

Amazing how shallow, self serving and narsassistic we have become.

Sad

Saw an interview recently with the head of the labor dept. His ignorance and love of Socialism was stunning. He strongly supports public sector unions because of their collective bargaining power. When asked why anyone should be forced to join a union, he avoided the question and instead advocated that the benefits afforded by the union justified the membership and dues requirement. It truly was incredible to listen to this bum. To think he's part of our government is depressing.

 

[whitepug6]

Saw an interview recently with the head of the labor dept. His ignorance and love of Socialism was stunning. He strongly supports public sector unions because of their collective bargaining power. When asked why anyone should be forced to join a union, he avoided the question and instead advocated that the benefits afforded by the union justified the membership and dues requirement. It truly was incredible to listen to this bum. To think he's part of our government is depressing.

Quit whining and try to do something about it! Call your representative and senator and tell them you want the Department of Labor abolished right now! LOL

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Quit whining and try to do something about it! Call your representative and senator and tell them you want the Department of Labor abolished right now! LOL

Whenever someone disagrees with you, your answer is "quit whining, shut up and take it". Thanks, Bobby Knight! Could it be that you're WRONG about the framers' intent? NO!!!! Now shut up, your opinion doesn't matter. Only mine matters because I said so.

 

[whitepug6]

Whenever someone disagrees with you, your answer is "quit whining, shut up and take it". Thanks, Bobby Knight! Could it be that you're WRONG about the framers' intent? NO!!!! Now shut up, your opinion doesn't matter. Only mine matters because I said so.

If you don't agree with a Supreme Court decision, there is a remedy: Put forward a Constitutional amendment that explicitly refutes the decision. Get two-thirds of the states to ratify it. Then you can put the Supreme Court in its place.

I am familiar with the intent of the framers of the US Constitution because Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay made those intentions abundantly clear in The Federalist Papers. For example, with respect to the Supremacy Clause, Madison wrote in Federalist 44 that if federal law was not superior to state law, "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members".

I encourage everyone to read The Federalist Papers.

 

[Riotch]

If you don't agree with a Supreme Court decision, there is a remedy: Put forward a Constitutional amendment that explicitly refutes the decision. Get two-thirds of the states to ratify it. Then you can put the Supreme Court in its place.

I am familiar with the intent of the framers of the US Constitution because Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay made those intentions abundantly clear in The Federalist Papers. For example, with respect to the Supremacy Clause, Madison wrote in Federalist 44 that if federal law was not superior to state law, "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members".

I encourage everyone to read The Federalist Papers.

Actually, I am for a constitutional amendment that requires congressional and presidential elections to paid for by federal tax dollars only. We need make it harder for big money to own policy. At this point, about 20 people control the election process through their huge $$. Oh and the Supreme Court ruled it was legal...you know business are people too and they can give unlimited amounts of money for campaigns. Thanks Supreme Court, thanks. ...lol

 

[Rolodawg2011]

WRONG YET AGAIN. The Court did not write new law or make anything up. If you do not understand the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, you shouldn't comment on anything related to it.

The show me where marriage is in the Constitution? Then show me where when POSOTUS argues that his "mandate" (fine)isn't a Tax before the Court, then the Court decides its a Tax even though specifically writen to not be a tax (do you even know why) and then claims it to be legal. Then the second time says the exact words writen in the law was really not what was meant, even though there was video evidence of the writers of this stupid law saying that it was EXACTLY why it was written that way......again, you're more than a goofy dipshit. You are actually a moron of the highest order

 

[whitepug6]

The show me where marriage is in the Constitution? Then show me where when POSOTUS argues that his "mandate" (fine)isn't a Tax before the Court, then the Court decides its a Tax even though specifically writen to not be a tax (do you even know why) and then claims it to be legal. Then the second time says the exact words writen in the law was really not what was meant, even though there was video evidence of the writers of this stupid law saying that it was EXACTLY why it was written that way......again, you're more than a goofy dipshit. You are actually a moron of the highest order

I never said marriage was in the Constitution, so you are making a bogus demand of me. However, I will cite the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between two individuals of the same sex, and required states to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex when the marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another state. If you can't read the bold print and understand how the amendment applies to same-sex marriages, then you probably shouldn't engage in activities that require interpretation.

I haven't read the decision in King v. Burwell yet, so I am not going to take a page from your book and just throw a bunch of unsupported opinions on the screen and conclude, "Fox News said it, I believe it, that settles it!" The only thing I did note is that you conservatives ought to be happy Roberts did not find the mandates applied under the Commerce Clause; Congress' ability to regulate virtually every economic activity under the Commerce Clause is already very expansive and this ruling may set the stage for future limits to be placed by the Court on Congress with regard to interstate commerce.

 

[doofusdawg]

I never said marriage was in the Constitution, so you are making a bogus demand of me. However, I will cite the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between two individuals of the same sex, and required states to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex when the marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another state. If you can't read the bold print and understand how the amendment applies to same-sex marriages, then you probably shouldn't engage in activities that require interpretation.

I haven't read the decision in King v. Burwell yet, so I am not going to take a page from your book and just throw a bunch of unsupported opinions on the screen and conclude, "Fox News said it, I believe it, that settles it!" The only thing I did note is that you conservatives ought to be happy Roberts did not find the mandates applied under the Commerce Clause; Congress' ability to regulate virtually every economic activity under the Commerce Clause is already very expansive and this ruling may set the stage for future limits to be placed by the Court on Congress with regard to interstate commerce.

Don't worry. If Obama gets two more scotus appointments then you won't need to worry about defending anything political because it will all be regulated. But you are obviously very intelligent and rational... so let me be the first to welcome you to the silent majority.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

I never said marriage was in the Constitution, so you are making a bogus demand of me. However, I will cite the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between two individuals of the same sex, and required states to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex when the marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another state. If you can't read the bold print and understand how the amendment applies to same-sex marriages, then you probably shouldn't engage in activities that require interpretation.

I haven't read the decision in King v. Burwell yet, so I am not going to take a page from your book and just throw a bunch of unsupported opinions on the screen and conclude, "Fox News said it, I believe it, that settles it!" The only thing I did note is that you conservatives ought to be happy Roberts did not find the mandates applied under the Commerce Clause; Congress' ability to regulate virtually every economic activity under the Commerce Clause is already very expansive and this ruling may set the stage for future limits to be placed by the Court on Congress with regard to interstate commerce.

Yea I'm sure they had deviants in mind when it was written and passed. Hell you nuttly libs find everything in the 14th amend, killing babies, deviant rights, whatever you like. How were deviants denied liberty or property?. But you got one thing right, it does mandate the states to now do so, taking elected state reps out of the equation and our fed reps, so now the ppl have no say in how they're governed. The States are the labs of innovation and growth. 40, FORTY States voted to protect marriage....F O R TY Y!!! Now some dumbass..and I mean dumbass (read his childish and silly statement) just took every persons right away from them and HE decided he knows best. Remember you have the other four voting with this fool who aren't really qualified judges, but political hacks with an agenda.....to destroy the Constitution. But dumbasses like you DGAS. The ends justify the means.

 

[kdsdawg]

I never said marriage was in the Constitution, so you are making a bogus demand of me. However, I will cite the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between two individuals of the same sex, and required states to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex when the marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another state. If you can't read the bold print and understand how the amendment applies to same-sex marriages, then you probably shouldn't engage in activities that require interpretation.

I haven't read the decision in King v. Burwell yet, so I am not going to take a page from your book and just throw a bunch of unsupported opinions on the screen and conclude, "Fox News said it, I believe it, that settles it!" The only thing I did note is that you conservatives ought to be happy Roberts did not find the mandates applied under the Commerce Clause; Congress' ability to regulate virtually every economic activity under the Commerce Clause is already very expansive and this ruling may set the stage for future limits to be placed by the Court on Congress with regard to interstate commerce.

exactly, when that passage in bold letters was written, men marrying men and women marrying women was the furthermost thing in anyone's mind. God destroyed a city based about that exact behavior. But I realize that the majority of liberals don't believe in God and that is the crux of the problem in itself.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The old ''States' Rights;; dodge.
I suppose The South should have been left alone to end Jim Crow when and if it suited them ?
Thank God or The Fed


The old ''States' Rights'' argument.
It's not about slavery, it's about our right to own slaves.
It's not about racist laws, it's about our right to make those laws,
Please...thank God for The Feds.

You should open a history books sometimes. And don't thank someone you don't know.

 

[im4thedawgs]

Yea I'm sure they had deviants in mind when it was written and passed. Hell you nuttly libs find everything in the 14th amend, killing babies, deviant rights, whatever you like. How were deviants denied liberty or property?. But you got one thing right, it does mandate the states to now do so, taking elected state reps out of the equation and our fed reps, so now the ppl have no say in how they're governed. The States are the labs of innovation and growth. 40, FORTY States voted to protect marriage....F O R TY Y!!! Now some dumbass..and I mean dumbass (read his childish and silly statement) just took every persons right away from them and HE decided he knows best. Remember you have the other four voting with this fool who aren't really qualified judges, but political hacks with an agenda.....to destroy the Constitution. But dumbasses like you DGAS. The ends justify the means.

I wanna hear a liberal explain if gay marriage is "protected", why aren't the rights of polygamists similarly protected. Last I remember Janet Reno was burning em "ISIS" style. Just sayin............ I guess the Dems don't consider the polygamists a large enough voting block.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

I wanna hear a liberal explain if gay marriage is "protected", why aren't the rights of polygamists similarly protected. Last I remember Janet Reno was burning em "ISIS" style. Just sayin............ I guess the Dems don't consider the polygamists a large enough voting block.

Thats exactly right. Great point