Then the position by yourself is that torture, and indefinite confinement without charges or conviction, are perfectly acceptable standards to be using in the world of today? The founding fathers of the united states were opposed to both standards, and codified into the united states constitution that they were not allowed.
"Founders' intent is not relevant??" Un-F'ing-believable. Once again, we see the morally and intellectually bankrupt wanting to push their agenda in defiance of our Founding principles. The Founders' intent is the single strongest indicator of what the Constitution means (if there's any question). It's not surprising those seeking to undermine or even actively destroy the Constitution would claim we don't need to consider the Founders' intent.
What is the founders intent on anti trust violations that SCOTUS must rule on the constitutionality of?
You made the statement regarding the Founder's intent not being relevant, a statement based on opinion, so presumably any new change in administration has the potential to issue a similar opinion and call for a revision to the Constitution... it's a living document, eh? Or, how would you time base relevancy?
I'll never understand people that think like this. It's like saying that if you speak to make a specific point, I can ignore your point and put my own meaning on what you say. Why would we not take people's words a face value?
Here's the reality: the Constitution was meant to be exceptionally difficult to change, requiring a supermajority of the American people to vote in favor of amending the Constitution. To the horror of many, it is not easy to get that large a percentage of the people to agree on an issue to make such a change to the Constitution... and that is a GOOD THING. If the Constitution isn't equipped to deal with a given issue, then we need an Amendment to address it. We can't just ignore the Constitution when we find it convenient to.
I think Vegas-deep down and away from the stupid one lines and silly anti gun arguments, knows that crap like registration is unconditional. He wants to restrict gun ownership to the point that it become too much a hassle for most people but he wants to get rid of the constitutional impediments to his schemes
it means nothing, what is important that none of the founders believed that the federal government should be able to ban or restrict firearms ownership by private citizens in their own states
No, You don't care. I care, Turtledude cares, Everyone here that has sacrificed much for others cares about the intent of the founding Fathers, Why ? The founding Fathers provided protection for future generations, us, and after we die, others will be able to defend themselves too.
Sure now... why not 49 years, 51, or any other absurd number. Prove 50 is reasonable, or any number that you chose.
He does want "Reasonable Gun Control" Whatever that means. QUESTION: If Vegas Giants wants "Reasonable Gun Control",....... Does that make Vegas Giants "Reasonable" ??? Disambiguation requested.
Prove it is reasonable that a presidential term should be four years. I have about a thousand more examples if you like