Do You Support a Constitutional Convention?

You guys all seem to think your views and claims are all you need to claim yourselves as being "all knowledgeable". I've accepted nothing but my own truths of the facts, there has been no indoctrination. This is your opportunity to have a discussion and explain and cite your claims, just throwing out "phrases" doesn't do much to persuade or enlighten anybody, it shows you can't articulate your claims.

 

Reversing my chronology????? How so?

The Nunn case simply conveyed

What was wrong with the link I provided ? https://www.landofthebrave.info/bill-of-rights-1689.htm

 

Let's go back to this claim. Everything your CoS link is claiming of the Supreme Court as doing the Supreme Court hasn't done in the very instances theyare claiming them to have done in. In order for the Supreme Court to "interpret" the Constitution as they claim they must first here a case in regards to the complaints. So please provide the cases the Supreme Court has done as they claim regarding their perceived grievances. In other words, what case does the Supreme Court allow run away spending? undeclared wars? government agencies to spy on citizens? Massive debt imposing our children to slavery? where they allow rule via EO? coercive medical insurance? the rise of a dominating bureaucracy?

 

I don't like SC rulings that flout the Constitution, and I believe Justices ought to obey their oath of office rather than presuming to legislate. How about you?

If anyone here is doing that, it's you, by implying every other poster here would make such a spectacularly retarded claim as you did in post #26.

The only way this makes any sense is if the underlined means "legitimize the wrongs", and no such power is vested in the Judiciary.

No, what Wickard effectively declares is that federal statutes are legitimate whether they're made in pursuance of the Constitution or not, if SCOTUS says so.

And somehow I won't be surprised to find out that as far as you're concerned, that's all it takes.

Thanks for exposing the root of your abject constitutional illiteracy.

 

You're the one who's utterly confused. Facts and truth are not one and the same. Truth is not an interpretation of anything. Interpretation of the facts is an OPINION, it may be true or it may be false as all opinions are.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/08/the-myth-of-marbury-v-madison/

The Supreme Court itself claims it has the power to interpret the Constitution, I provided the link to the SCOTUS website. What is it you don't understand about "As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."?

Once again you're trying to throw in BS. It isn't about what Madison says, it's about what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court claims.

 

Yet what you claim is your "truth" is nothing more than a belief of a Supreme Court claim that has been pounded into the mindset of the gullible and uninformed. That is what is known as indoctrination by authority or propaganda.

 

I'm not going to try and get into a pissing match with you.

PRIOR to Nunn v. Georgia we had no standing precedents of our own by which to apply the law. So, the Court used the English law to the point of where it ran into OUR "Magna Carta."

The earliest Courts did that, but the United States Supreme Court first went along with the lower courts, but then began reversing their own rulings... that is called judicial activism - an unconstitutional practice that Trump is hoping to reverse by putting strict constructionists on the bench.

Now, I'm sorry, but I'm done with the back and forth, personality jockeying. I refuse to engage in it with you. There are the facts.

 

In post # 26 I was very polite and nice, offering you the opportunity to school me despite my skepticism. And all you've done so far is whine and bitch and find fault with most of the posters on this thread. You won't be offended when we begin ignoring your B.S.

 

What Supreme Court rulings is it you think flout the Constitution? The ones previously do no such thing.

The Constitution has more then 10 Amendments, and the states are required to provide equal protection of their laws, not discriminate based on their beliefs.

What statutes do you think are unconstitutional that the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional?

Well, if you don't like their Opinion then do what you think necessary to change it, which relegates you to doing nothing but bitch and whine about it.

Abject Constitutional illiteracy? Your inept insults are hilarious, now stand up real fast and yell POP! see if you can get your head out of your ass.

 

Here is an "absolute truth" for you, lets see if you understand it. There are no round squares. Simple isn't it? That is a fact and an absolute truth, it is true no matter what the circumstances.

Did you even read your link? It completely nullifies your claims in this thread. It even points out Alexander Hamilton in saying: The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .(emphasis added).

I understand it quite well, you were the one claiming that the Supreme Court can't "interpret" the Constitution.Your own link says what I have stated.

Round and round we go.

 

Boring

 

My "truth" has been shown even by you and your provided links as being correct. Your last link to the Tenth Amendment Center clearly states this from Alexander Hamilton: The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .(emphasis added). Do you not understand that the Constitution is but law, don't you guys call it the "law of the land"? Kinda hard to pound into the mindset when what you are pounding is exactly what I have stated that you keep claiming I am wrong about.

Aren't you the one claiming that Marbury for you was the one that broke the camel's back was Marbury v Madison. The seizure of the power to "interpret" the Constitution was the one that led to ALL these outrageous decisions.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...onal-convention.527775/page-9#post-1068784902

I'll ask you again to cite the section or portion of Marbury that does as you claim, so far all you have done is prove my claims as being correct.

 

There is no pissing match, this is a simple discussion.

Nunn simply showed how our right to keep and bear arms came about and how the 2A protects the right.

What early state court rulings were reversed by the Supreme Court? State Court rulings don't make for Federal Precedent. I hope Trump puts in Justices that don't use their beliefs as their guiding light.

I'm sorry you're done, giving up never helps anybody.

 

Barring federal precedents or where the law is murky, state court decisions provide persuasive authority as did my cited cases to the Cruikshank decision

 

Call it what you want, but aren't you the one always quoting the founders? When the founders say the Supreme Court can interpret the law and the Constitution is law, then where are they wrong? Where am I wrong in stating what they say?

 

State decisions are relevant in their states only.

Persuasive Authority. Sources of law, such as related cases or legal encyclopedias, that the court consults in deciding a case, but which, unlike binding authority, the court need not apply in reaching its conclusion.

 

The founders and the earliest Courts were ALL in basic agreement on many issues - in the instant case, the Right to keep and bear Arms.

The Nunn decision and the Cockrum decision were consistent with each other as was the sentiments of the United States Supreme Court.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” Justice Joseph Story - nominated by James Madison, father of the Bill of Rights and co - founder of Harvard University

 

Where is it you think the Supreme Court went wrong? I'm not seeing it. Previously you quoted Heller:

What is incorrect about Scalias statement above? He seems to refer to Nunn in the fact that states can regulate how a weapon is carried; Miller, as in not every weapon is legal; Cruikshank, as you can carry openly for legal purposes.

 

who the hell cares

No one who makes such a preposterous claim with a straight face, and refuses to walk it back, is educable - sorry for any inconvenience.

Your point being...?

I won't tolerate this level of condescension. Now I don't know if you have any idea what it means to talk straight across to another person, but if you expect to converse with yours truly, you're damn well gonna have to figure it out right quick.

I will gladly cop to being absurdly charitable, when it's lamentably clear that you literally don't understand the first thing about it. Hell, Trump probably understands it better than you, and I doubt he's ever read past the big print.

 

I graduated second in a class of 75. People here can believe whomever they want. When I tell you that you are full of crap on this, it's not an insult; it is the truth.

Here is a link to one of the briefs (in support of a writ for cert) filed in a recent United States Supreme Court case involving the Second Amendment. If you will read it carefully, you will see BOTH Nunn v. State and Cockrum v State were used as precedents to persuade the high Court.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...1_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.authcheckdam.pdf

“Although various intermediate appellate [state] courts are not [binding on us], ... they are persuasive authority, and we must follow them when they are the best evidence of what [state] law is.”

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/case-law

 

If you can't see it, I cannot help you. I've spent a lot of time citing the language and how it changes ever so slightly. For example:

There is no limitation on the kinds, types, etc. of weapons you own. Cruikshank could have struck that down; they didn't. By the time we got to 1939, the Miller case found Miller guilty because his shotgun was not a weapon normally carried by the militia and today the courts are trying to outlaw arms that would be carried and used by a militia.

 

There is not a swinging Richard on the face of this earth who can't read post # 26 here and see the facts. You have too high an opinion of yourself and anybody that responds to your crap is feeding another troll. This board already has one, but who knows, maybe you can knock him off his lofty position.

 

My mistake is trying to discuss an issue with you when your logic doesn't match the rest of the planet. In your world every opinion is true because truth is subjective. But you don't even follow that logic because if you did, you would agree that my opinion is as true as yours.

I live in the real world where there is true and its opposite, false. I majored in mathematics and have a career in the computer consulting business for over 45 years. In programming, there is only true and false and every computer program operates under that black and white principle. If it didn't, computers would not exist. Mathematics operates under the same principle.

So it's an exercise in futility on my part to try to discuss the Supreme's seized power of "interpretation" of the Constitution with someone who sees such language in the Constitution that appears nowhere. I think I'm done with you. In your world it exists because the Supreme Court claims it does, it's the opinion of SCOTUS and all opinions are true (except when you don't want it to be). Oy vey as my grandma used to say.

 

Is your graduation position suppose to somehow impress or show something more than you graduated?

You can tell me anything you want, it is your opinion.

Nunn and Cockrum were used as persuasive authority, not as precedents to persuade. Even your quoted link says persuasive authority and not precedent.

I think it is you that shows yourself to be full of crap by trying to change what your own quotes actually state. I also think you having graduated 2nd in a class of 75 was second from the bottom after reading how you like to change what your quotes are saying. This was not an insult but a mere observation of your attempts at trying to change facts to suit your argument.

 

Before we do that, i think we should practice doing what the current one actually says instead of some political interpretation by 9 political activists.