If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

Lots of speculation on your part. Reality check: We didn't like the government over there in Churchill's part of the world. Did you miss that history lesson?

 

That was an absolutely empty post. You didn't even bother to try to make one single point.

If all you're going to do is ad hom, or cliam I made some statement that you can't identify, you could type a LOT fewer characters.

Or none.

 

The 14th Amendment eliminated the concept of unalienable Rights. When people bandy about that word inalienable, they know what they're saying. They realize that inalienable rights are given by government, and consequently, subject to alienation if you forfeit the "right" or they give you their version of Due Process (and even that is in danger.) The 16th Amendment is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.

Where do we go from here? The real Americans need a modern version of the Magna Charta - an updated Declaration of Independence. What you have is crumbling before your very eyes. Prepare for the cycles of history to proceed and nothing you say stops the inevitable.

 

Honesty in government since that point takes precedence.

 

and I followed that statement up by posting the court case acknowledging that fact!

The only way these guys can argue their position is in denial of the facts.

 

Our forefathers despised the concept of democracy. The Democratic Republican Party failed. You either have unalienable Rights or you don't. When we moved toward the direct election of U.S. Senators, we set the stage to load the Senate with hacks, not intelligent and capable minds that you admit are non-existent in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. Democracy fails and the more people like you do to push us toward it, the more endangered the people become.

 

Every time someone disagrees with you, you claim ad hominem. Maybe you mean and hominy? Are you hungry? You don't make a lot of sense.

 

And right now the political pendulum favors the left. What happens if a Trump United States Supreme Court decides against willreadmore's position? What if they reverse themselves on established precedent when willreadmore stands to lose something? He claims ad hominems, but is happy as a pig in slop with that statement about the United States Supreme Court being the "daddy." I told the truth about what he said... another ad hominem. So, he understands there is no "representative democracy," but fails to man up and admit it.

 

Our founders took great care to isolate what it was that we disagreed with. We declared that in peace we were friends - even at that time of ultimate hostility.

Our support of UK in multiple serious conflicts included monumental effort and the lost of huge numbers of lives.

Today, we work together with UK and Europe on numerous international issues.

And, there are few in the world who don't have serious respect for the leadership of Churchill.

 

"Today, we work together with UK and Europe on numerous hell bent on world domination issues."
FTFY

It comes as no surprise that you have high regard and respect for genocidal criminals.

No, instead asks whats the solution to defer attention from his total defeat!

 

I have at least two problelms with that.

First, it explicitly extends the rights supported in our constitution to citizens in the states. Thus states can not claim that federal rights protection can't be countered by state law.

Suggesting that takes away support for rights is total nonsense. It would require that one rejects the constitution.

Second, NONE of our rights protections is absolute. For example, public safety is one of several justifications for limiting rights protections. Another relates to the requirement of equal treatement. There are cases where it is impossible for government to meet justified objectives while treating each citizen equally. For example, in social safety net support.

If you want to get into adjudication of rights protections, you have to study the framework used by our courts for deciding such cases - strict scruitiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis scrutiny, suspect classes, etc.

 

I have at least two problelms with that.

First, it explicitly extends the rights supported in our constitution to citizens in the states. Thus states can not claim that federal rights protection can't be countered by state law.

Suggesting that takes away support for rights is total nonsense. It would require that one rejects the constitution.

Second, NONE of our rights protections is absolute. For example, public safety is one of several justifications for limiting rights protections. Another relates to the requirement of equal treatement. There are cases where it is impossible for government to meet justified objectives while treating each citizen equally. For example, in social safety net support.

If you want to get into adjudication of rights protections, you have to study the framework used by our courts for deciding such cases - protected classes, etc.

 

False.

Every time someoe calls someone a liar, states someone is just ignorant or uneducated, makes incredibly juvenile jokes about names, etc. the ARE using ad hom.

And, that IS the sum total of your posts. There is just not content.

 

I have at least two problelms with that.

First, it explicitly extends the rights supported in our constitution to citizens in the states. Thus states can not claim that federal rights protection can't be countered by state law.

Suggesting that takes away support for rights is total nonsense. It would require that one rejects the constitution.

Second, NONE of our rights protections is absolute. For example, public safety is one of several justifications for limiting rights protections. Another relates to the requirement of equal treatement. There are cases where it is impossible for government to meet justified objectives while treating each citizen equally. For example, in social safety net support.

If you want to get into adjudication of rights protections, you have to study the framework used by our courts for deciding such cases - protected classes, etc.

 

OK.

So, the SC is majority right wing. The president is right wing. The Senate is right wing.

And, YOU think the government has swug left!!

Our system absolutely IS a representative democracy. That's how our founders created the USA.

 

Our explicit rights existed prior to their explicit extension in the 14th converting our 'rights' to privileges' as has been acknowledged by the courts and shown to you since we voted on the ****ing BoR in the first place!

The states could not legitimately make that claim anyway, in an honest gubmint designed to protect our rights rather than the gubmint we have that converted our rights to privileges now designed to take them away.

Ask the japs ww2, when they most needed their rights they soon discovered they NONE and were thrown into american concentration camps.

huh?

That does not give the gubmint the self appointed authority to DICTATE our rights to us, it does give them full authority however to DICTATE privileges.

Clearly you dont have a clue what the difference is.

Neither does it give the gubmint the authority to 'DISCRIMNATE'!

 

Oh, please. "State's Rights" grew up around the premise that states didn't need to accept that federal rights protections applied to citizens of the states. Alabama and others wanted segregation, for example. They refused the idea that rights protections promised citizens by the constitution should apply inside their state.

States themselves are bound by our constitution to treat their citizens equally. That does applie to privliges defined by the state - but it certainly is not limited to that.

Yes, Korimatsu. But, that is a well know failure of humans abiding by their law. It certainly is not a refutation of our constitution - it's a refutation of those who committed a gigantic humanitarian crime.

I don't know what "dictate our rights to us" means. I haven't heard that one!

 

Not related to the OP much less anything I've posted...

 

Whatever you're posting, it is total rubbish without meaning. The 14th Amendment repealed the Bill of Rights. Whatever tangent you're going off on now is not worthy of a response.

 

There is NO content to your posts. All you do is yell ad hominem; you've yet to access any link I've posted and respond in a manner that makes a responsive reply to anything I've advocated.

 

You are factually WRONG.

"Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Constitution of the United States)

Sorry dude, no democracy there. Then, when I was in school:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," I went all through school and never pledged allegiance to a democracy.

"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way." (Fisher Ames, founding father)

 

However, responsive to your comments.

Have you flipped away from those comments of yours? Great!

 

You'll have to explain what you're trying to get at here.

Without the 14th amendment, states could legally ignore rights protected by our federal government.

It would leave the constitution with a bill of rights that each state could consider irrelevant.

 

Oh, brother, not THAT again!

Having a republican form of government doesn't mean we aren't a representative democracy.

"Republic" doesn't say anything about how decisions are made. Rome was a Republic. In the mid 1600's the Commonwealth of England was a Republic. Athens was a Republic.

There is a long list of republics, and that name doesn't suggest how they made decisions.

In the US, how we make decisions is seriously important. And, that method is representative democracy.

 

case law please?