ACLU got a bloody lip

[Forever_frost]

Actually it does. "Congress shall make no law.." If it's not Congress making a law, it's not unconstitutional. Simple words that you seem to have trouble understanding. The Constitution was meant to be a muzzle for a central government, not the states. That's why you have the 10th amendment

[futant]

The land that it's placed on is not taxed, thereby increasing the tax burden on every other person that does pay taxes.

Don't get started about the constitution, I can show you in black and white where it says that it's the supreme law of the land, but you'll ignore it.

LMAO

[TexasT]

Actually it does. "Congress shall make no law.." If it's not Congress making a law, it's not unconstitutional. Simple words that you seem to have trouble understanding. The Constitution was meant to be a muzzle for a central government, not the states. That's why you have the 10th amendment

So, somehow you have twisted that the local governments passing laws that are unconstitutional is honkey dorey? Push that by again. The constitution is the top dog, would you agree? If not, I think you are interpreting it wrong.

[Forever_frost]

So, somehow you have twisted that the local governments passing laws that are unconstitutional is honkey dorey? Push that by again. The constitution is the top dog, would you agree? If not, I think you are interpreting it wrong.

As the constitution was written to bind the federal government, unless a power is expressly granted to the federal government or expressly denied to the states, it belongs to the states. According to the 10th amendment, it's a state issue on what they would prefer in this instance.

Reference: 1st amendment, 10th amendment

I offer no interpretation, merely the wording of the document

[racrguy]

Read the 14th, and shut the fuck up. More specifically the incorporation doctrine. Also read where SCOTUS has the ability to hear ALL cases. Tell me again how the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to interpret the constitution?

[Forever_frost]

Read the 14th, and shut the fuck up. More specifically the incorporation doctrine. Also read where SCOTUS has the ability to hear ALL cases. Tell me again how the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to interpret the constitution?

It has no ability to interpret the constitution. It has the ability to see if a law fits under the purview of the constitution but no authority to interpret the document itself.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Yeah, not seeing anything in the 14th that backs your claim that the state cannot put up religious displays.

[Forever_frost]

Again, I'm aware of the incorporation doctrine but as it would have to be applied to EVERY amendment of the constitution and it isn't, it's pretty clear that it doesn't apply. Once again, the Supreme Court had no authority to extend anything beyond the text of the document. If this was actually law, no government at any level, would ever be able to create any gun law of any sort.

I'm willing to listen to actual text of the constitution that states that the restriction of the 1st amendment applies not to Congress but the states, counties and cities as well.

[racrguy]

Again, I'm aware of the incorporation doctrine but as it would have to be applied to EVERY amendment of the constitution and it isn't, it's pretty clear that it doesn't apply. Once again, the Supreme Court had no authority to extend anything beyond the text of the document. If this was actually law, no government at any level, would ever be able to create any gun law of any sort.

I'm willing to listen to actual text of the constitution that states that the restriction of the 1st amendment applies not to Congress but the states, counties and cities as well.

So you're willing to ignore the constitution, only to listen to it?

My mind is full of fuck.

[Forever_frost]

So you're willing to ignore the constitution, only to listen to it?

My mind is full of fuck.

No, if you can provide me the words in the Constitution that states that the words of the first amendment "Congress shall not" apply to states, counties and cities, I would appreciate it. I am not finding it in my copy.

[Forever_frost]

Interesting point of view on Judicial Review:

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.
Powers of the Supreme Court

Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

[racrguy]

No, if you can provide me the words in the Constitution that states that the words of the first amendment "Congress shall not" apply to states, counties and cities, I would appreciate it. I am not finding it in my copy.

Dude, I'm drunk and I know more about the constitution than you do. If you think the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to rule on constitutional topics, then there's no use on you speaking about it, ever. Why do you think the incorporation doctrine doesn't apply to all amendments? BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN FUCKING CHALLENGED. That's how they work, they aren't a pre-emptive body, they're a reactionary body. Government passes a law/policy, the SCOTUS leaves it alone until challenged.

The fact that a drunk person understands and can articulate this concept better than a sober person is a bit unnerving.

[Forever_frost]

Dude, I'm drunk and I know more about the constitution than you do. If you think the SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to rule on constitutional topics, then there's no use on you speaking about it, ever. Why do you think the incorporation doctrine doesn't apply to all amendments? BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN FUCKING CHALLENGED. That's how they work, they aren't a pre-emptive body, they're a reactionary body. Government passes a law/policy, the SCOTUS leaves it alone until challenged.

The fact that a drunk person understands and can articulate this concept better than a sober person is a bit unnerving.

You have yet to prove what you say. They have the ability to rule on constitutional topics, not to interpret the constitution. Perhaps when you sober up, you'll understand the difference between teh two.

A doctrine is not law and does not become binding to the constitution unless it is added into the document by amendment. Saying that incorporation mandates states and cities be held under the first amendment but not the second is a fallacy and incorrect. As there are numerous laws on firearms, the federal government, states and cities disagree with you and agree with me.

I ask for citation.

[SS Junk]

Moral code that mentions nothing of rape, but says not to use a name in vain. Seems legit.

Your ignorance on Christianity is leaking again.

I ask for citation.

Several times this has happened- Mouths a claim and never follows through only to mouth off more crap to cover up the first claim of crap with more crap.

[John Galt]

Moral code that mentions nothing of rape, but says not to use a name in vain. Seems legit.

Pretty sure the 10th commandment covers rape, adultery, animal husbandry, etc. Try reading the commandments before you bash them.