The Constitution is a Living Document
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/v/Ua_3OyrGWl8

No it's NOT, at least NOT according to you Literal Interpreters.

A literal Interpretation of the Constitution is a DEAD Constitution.

A Living Constitution is Open to Interpretation, which you Repocons just HATE.

We have a dead Constitution in Texas, which is why we have amended it over 500+ times!

 
He hurt your sensitive feelings, didn't he Davik...  hahaha

according to scalia and the other bozo teabaggers on the bench!!  talk about inventing stuff not even mentioned in the Constitution!!  just where does the Constitution mention corporations one time? if it never mentions corporations, and according to Scalia if something is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, justices are not supposed to "assume" what the original "intent" of the framers is supposed to be, they are not supposed to make any judgment at all in a positive manner.  that is how he excused his vote against gay marriage being legal.  he said it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and by golly, he is right!!  but it does give equal protection under the law to all citizens, and if one segment of the population receive 100's of automatic legal rights just by getting a marriage license and being married, THEN ALL CITIZENS SHOULD.  but that clear and logical interpretation can not be used for corporate rights to have human rights like scalia and some other clowns decided.  they are not citizens.  they are not human.  duh. how in the world can scalia supporters or defenders believe he was an originalist, when he jumped way over the top to reach for some excuse to make unlimited corporate financing of elections legal?  or that corporations had the constitutional right to make religious decisions concerning what benefits they could give some employees but not others?  how can a corporation have religious rights?  i mean, in reality world, not teabagger land. 

It's not a living document.  It's essentially a dead letter, used only an excuse for more power rather than as a limit on power.

Democrats like interpreting it to their fascism.

yep:

right wingers passed prohibition

left wingers got rid of it

right wingers forbade woman voting

left wingers gave them the vote

right wingers..........never mind, you get the picture

opiate is one confused moron.  liberals are the antithesis of fascists.  teabaggers are fascists.  get it?  right wingers are fascists.  racists are fascists.  xenophobes and other bigots are fascists.  warmongers are fascists. 

opiate is one confused moron.  liberals are the antithesis of fascists.  teabaggers are fascists.  get it?  right wingers are fascists.  racists are fascists.  xenophobes and other bigots are fascists.  warmongers are fascists.
 
Except, we "Switched Sides"  Remember?

And liberal democrats have the brains of a fern.  Or they would never be Democrats. 

what do you mean we switched sides?  republicans have been the more racist party since the early 60's...here is proof positive:

no southern republican in the house voted for the civil rights act.  not one.  and the democrats held the south so firmly THERE WAS JUST ONE REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM ANY CONFEDERATE STATES IN 1964 AND ONLY 10 SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS......get it? here is the real deal-

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

•Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7%–93%)
•Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0%–100%)

•Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%–6%)
•Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

•Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5%–95%)
•Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0%–100%)
 
•Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%–2%)
•Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%–16%)

republicans have been the more racist party since the early 60's.
 
No, that's just the time Democrats started  playing this childish game because Republicans of the time saw through the Democrat plan to keep Blacks on a voting Plantation with free food pellets, coupons for mac&cheese, rat infested housing, and welfare for women with children as long no daddy was in the home. And the more kids, the more welfare.
 
Voting against that is not Racism, its compassion and concern..
 

If the constitution is a living document, then why do the TrEA$on party @sswholes wipe their nasty asses with it?(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

 
You mean, Why do you?

wow, awesome turnaround, chemtrail!!  i see someone has been taking duke john lessons in ankle biting insultery. 

A turnaround to someone else's 'attempted' turnaround, is not a turnaround.  Its a return to its proper owner..

No Jim, I meant what I said.  We have all watched as on an almost daily basis you TrEA$on party @sswholes interpret, reinterpret, and invent all sorts of things to/for the constitution to somehow justify some fascist thing that you want to force America into.

 
We adhere to the Constitution as written by the Founders...  Excuse us if you don't like that..


(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2kb2bd0faf65.jpg)
 
 

where does the constitution say corporations have human rights?  even you have to admit the conservative majority of Supreme Court had to pull that one out of their collective ass.  not once, but twice. 

What is not in the U.S. Constitution.



We vote for the president
Wrong again. We actually vote for "electors" in the Electoral College who represent us as they elect prez and veep. They almost always follow our popular vote but legally they don't have to.   

Conscientious objectors
You can refuse to fight in war if it violates your moral beliefs. It's not in the Constitution but this protection was recognized even before our nation was formed.

Plea bargaining
Prosecutors often offer lighter punishments if a defendant admits to being guilty or helps in other ways. It's not in the Constitution.

The U.S. is a democracy
It's a "republic," a kind of democracy where we elect representatives to make laws for us. We call America a democracy all the time -- that's cool -- but republic is more accurate.

God's name
God isn't mentioned in the Constitution except that 1787 is described as "the year of our Lord." It is the Declaration of Independence that says "all men are endowed by their 'Creator.' "

Innocent until proven guilty
Those words don't show up in the Constitution. Suspects can be jailed, strip searched, harshly interrogated, forced to pay bail. You won't really feel very innocent until you are proven innocent.

Supreme Court declaring laws unconstitutional
The power of the Court to kill a law it thinks violates the Constitution isn't in the Constitution. The Supreme Court grabbed that power for itself soon after the nation was created.

Jury of your peers
It means a jury of fair-minded people. If you face trial, you can choose and reject jurors from a large pool of people. The exact phrase is not in the Consitution.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
 It's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence
Totally zoned out during social science class, didn't you? The DOI isn't part of the Constitution. It was written 11 years earlier.

 American Flag
There's no mention of The Stars and Strips or Old Glory.

Marriage
 Not a word about marriage. Straight, gay or otherwise.

"Taxation without representation"
It may have made an awesome bumper sticker leading up to the Revolution (actually it's on today's license plates in Washington D.C.) but this famous phrase wasn't written into the Constitution.

Political parties
Don't blame the Constitution.

The right to education
It's not in the Constitution but Americans believe ignorant people make lame citizens. Eventually school was made available to every child.

Privacy, a right to be left alone
The Ninth Amendment guarantees rights that aren't mentioned by name. The Right to Privacy is one of them.

Miranda Rights
The duty of cops to read your rights to you if you've arrested was created by the Supreme Court in 1966. "Miranda Rights" are in lots of movies but not in the Constitution.

States rights
The Constitution gives "powers" to the states. Rights belong to the people.

"Implied" powers
The federal government exercises lots of unnamed (implied) powers that are "necessary and proper" to carry out  the powers that are named.

 "Separation of church and state"
Thomas Jefferson used this well-known phrase to explain that Congress can't make laws that establish or limit the practice of religion. It's not in the Constitution.

Checks and Balances
You won't find C&Bs in the Constitution. The separation of powers is spelled out in Articles I, II and III. The Constitution's framers (writers) were paranoid about giving to much power to one group or the other.

Filibuster
The Senate created the "filibuster" rule which gives a minority group of senators the right to block voting on an issue. It takes 60 (of 100) senators to "break" a filibuster. Not mentioned in the Constitution.

"All men are created equal"
Right idea, wrong document. Check out the Declaration of Independence.
"Government of the people, by the people and for the people"
President Lincoln used these words in his Gettysburg Address during the Civil War.

 Along long time ago in a far far away galaxy.  I was a DEMOCRAT...I honest to God voted for Bill Clinton for his first term.  By the time his term was expiring I was so damned tired of lies, idiots supporting his and HER LIES. that I swore never again to vote for any Democrat for a national office.

Both of the Clintons are DIRTY.  They have used their positions to get rich and have lied their way out of so many scandals that  most of us can no longer remember when they actually told the truth.

I understand that the FBI has finished their investigative portion of the Hillary probe. 

The fun is now starting...let  her stand up to the FBI and tell the truth... A lot of former supporters would love to hear it.

president clinton has a comforting ring to it

Let the prisoner step forward has a better ring to it and would be far more comforting to an American with an IQ of room temp.  I don't expect the libs will like it very much. 

Proving not one of the liberals responding to this post bothered to actually watch the video!

president clinton has a comforting ring to it
 
But then again, you would have voted for Charlie Manson instead of Tump. so that comforting ring appears to be tinnitus...

who is tump?  and kenyan the pig liar is lying again.  there is no way he voted for bill clinton and then within 4 years, when the economy and the stock market and the deficits and the budget had all reversed and started the longest consecutive economic bull market in our history, you would somehow have gone crazy and imagined lies coming from him or Hillary!!  what lies, you stupid piece of shit bitch?  all you can do is mumble the crazed right wing talking points over and over again like a retarded parrot without EVEN BEING ABLE TO NAME ONE, YOU IDIOT...what goddamn mythical lie are you talking about from either clinton, you lying asshole?  name one or admit what a punk ass liar you are, boy. 

in re: Whether the Constitution is a living document.

The claim that the Constitution is a living document directly contradicts the adamant belief of an icon of the right, 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scalia-at-texas-tech-constitution-is-not-a-living-document/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism.html

words mean nothing.  scalia can talk about how much of an originalist he was, but when he actually rules that the Constitution somehow stated that corporations have the same constitutional rights as citizens, and that somehow the Constitution clearly states this, proves what a lying dumbass clown he was.  and how stupid his supporters are for believing that gigantic slimy corporate stooge was fair and impartial in his rulings.  he voted as a catholic, and he voted as a corporate stooge, no matter what the Constitution said.

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.” 

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights. As a legal person, the corporation has the right to own property. It has the right to form contracts. If either of those rights is interfered with, the corporation has the right to sue in court. The second feature is separation of the entity from the stockholders. The company’s property is held in its own name and belongs to it, not to the investors. If the corporation breaches a contract, it’s the company, not the individual stockholders, that is responsible. If the corporation is harmed in some way, the individual investors are not allowed to sue. The corporation has to do it.

This conception of corporate personhood has profound and beneficial economic consequences. It means that the obligations the law imposes on the corporation, such as liability for harms caused by the firm’s operations, are not generally extended to the shareholders. Limited liability protects the owners’ personal assets, which ordinarily can’t be taken to pay the debts of the corporation. This creates incentives for investment, promotes entrepreneurial activity, and encourages corporate managers to take the risks necessary for growth and innovation. That’s why the Supreme Court, in business cases, has held that “incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legally distinct entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.


This concept isn't new. In ancient Roman law, a corporation was considered a juristic person: a single, nonhuman entity that legally represented a group of many people [source: Sherman]. The idea makes sense; after all, a corporation is made up of people's financial contributions.

In fact, in the United States, corporations have the same protections under the Constitution that humans do.

Scott forgets Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget which he vetoed twice before finally signing it!

dickhead dvd forgets i have forgotten more than he will ever remember about current events, and that CLINTON CAMPAIGNED ON BALANCING THE BUDGET AND STARTED BALANCING THE BUDGET AND CUTTING THE HUGE DEFICITS CREATED BY REAGAN AND PAPA BUSH FROM DAY ONE, WITH A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CONGRESS.....and yeah, the repubs finally came around 2 years later, and did pass a bill that tried to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and working poor and the poor, which is always who the repubs try to make pay for any budget cuts, and clinton refused until newtie boy had to give in and compromise.  why are you so ignorant of the truth?

Clinton Accepts Nomination, Promises to Balance Budget ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjhl8361ebLAhUFPCYKHb86ADkQFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2FSB841369463506556500&usg=AFQjCNExmh81zOtf-VtDQZpW58YJ5Soksg&sig2=mmUy5T7DcWW4lKnKgshJRA&bvm=bv.117868183,d.eWE)www.wsj.com/articles/SB841369463506556500 The Wall Street Journal President Clinton vowed to "build a bridge to the 21st century" in his acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention, stressing youth and the ...

A promise Clinton had no intention of carrying out!

Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and that was only reached on paper!

go away, confused simpleton. 

Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and that was only reached on paper!

Obama also promised to balanced the budget!

Did he?

It would seem to me, that liberals are a confused lot.

in re: Reply #28

The Supreme Court still thinks the corporations are people.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/

 
Corporations ARE people.  Who do you think run Corporations?  Robots?  There is not one single Corporation that runs itself.
It requires people.


class Dismissed...
 

you are an idiot.  god.  you need to take a college level remedial EVERYTHING course.  you are completely stupid!!  you actually just said this- CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE.  i remember when this huge corporation was found guilty of hiding the fact that due to a faulty design, the odds of a certain type of car it produced bursting into flames from a relatively minor rear end collision were way over what most reasonable people would accept as within the realm of statistical normality.  so instead of fixing the problem, and saving many lives and horrible injuries to many others, they decided it would be cheaper to not fix it, and just pay off the few cases they might be sued for.  they were eventually found culpable in a huge civil suit, and the corporate headquarters was moved into prison for 25 years or 50,000 miles, whichever came first, until finally, 10 years later it was killed by a fellow prisoner who said God told him to avenge all the crispy critters this corporation killed. 

jivin' jim: Corporations ARE people.  Who do you think run Corporations?  Robots?  There is not one single Corporation that runs itself. It requires people. [sic]

The fact that people run corporations does not make them people. Using jivin' jim's flawed logic, when motor vehicles are operated by people they become people.

guns also become people....wow, the NRA is going to be so mad!!  they keep saying guns don't kill people, people kill people!!  and here is one of their own hypnotized loons disagreeing!!

1965hawks says people who are members of corporation are no longer people!

What are they, 1965hawks?

When people marry they form a corporation, does that cause them to cease to be people?

When people form a union they form a corporation, does that cause them to cease to be people?

Fool!

D2Deranged: 1965hawks says people who are members of corporation are no longer people! [sic]

I said no such thing, you lying, dim-witted strumpet. That's what your DUMB ass said.

What are they, 1965hawks?

"They?" To whom are you referring, D2Demented?

When people marry they form a corporation, does that cause them to cease to be people?

When people marry they form a marriage, not a corporation, you blithering idiot.

When people form a union they form a corporation, does that cause them to cease to be people?

A marriage is sometimes called a union, but never called a "corporation."

Take a seat and shut the fuck up, you demented fool!

Under the law marriage and incorporation are the same thing!

Two or more people entering into a legal contract for mutual benefit and protection!

D2D: Under the law marriage and incorporation are the same thing[.]

Really? Explain how a marriage forms a corporation. Give me an example of someone owning shares (stocks) in a couple's marriage; give me an example of someone buying and selling shares in a couple's marriage.

Two or more people entering into a legal contract for mutual benefit and protection[.]

People entering into a contract do not form a corporation, you know-nothing windbag. And having more than one marriage partner is called either bigamy or polygamy--not a corporation, you shit-for-for brains ass clown.

FUCK YOU SCOTT!!!

Loser,  I do not like the CLINTONS,  either of them... more than likely including Chelsea too.   And I definitely think that YOU are one of the most close minded assholes in the cyber world.  BAR NONE!!!!

Looking back, I was not a big fan of Carter... At the same time I was loyal to my party which was the D's...But I had hopes for Bill.  Even though I understand that he benefited from REAGAN to a large degree. regardless OF THAT... HE WAS A LYING JERK WHO DID NOT DESERVE the breaks that he received,

Why could I NOT expect more from the guy I supported and VOTED FOR as POTUS? He claimed to be above board and was willing to make changes that would help this nation.

I really do not give a Fuc* for what you now claim that he accomplished in his first term... He lost me at the lies and the wagging his finger and telling us that "he did not have sex with that woman"... And Hillary used her status to ruin these females and claimed it was a VAST RIGHT WING  CONPIRACY.  She is actually worse than Bill as he hid his action and she lied to assist his lies."  knowing damn well he was lying.

I HAVE TRIED FOR YEARS TO TELL YOU AND OTHER IGNORANT LIBERALS WHAT A POTUS SHOULD BE AND WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED. 

Hillary has no clue and should not even be considered until she has answered for all of her lies and her dishonesty. 

And there is the actual reality of the truth... and your refusal to accept it...is more of a view into your moral character that is sorely lacking. 

Again, 1965hawks proves himself woefully ignorant!

Pity him!

Sad to see such a display of intentional ignorance!

Sorry, D2Debunked. Your silly ad hominem attack against me  doesn't attack the argument I presented. In actuality, our calling me ignorant doesn't refute any point I've argued does it, you shit-for-brains ignoramus? And, yes, I'm calling you an ignoramus and with good reason: anyone who would attempt to argue that a wedding creates a corporation is obviously ignorant and, in addition to that, also an idiot. So instead of pitying me, what your ignorant ass really should do is take a seat and shut the fuck up. You're too stupid to even pretend you know what the fuck you're talking about. 

 
Ad hominem attacks are all you have, hawks.  Try using logic instead of invective and you may someday win an argument with D2D.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/70/12/897012bcc4ffc9447f19e79001ff7945.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwitrbSW7-3LAhXDXyYKHbV5CtcQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F489555421964734762%2F&psig=AFQjCNEZOEFcfeuojqU1n9wKWZo6h-SLjQ&ust=1459614813262861)


"[The Constitution] is not a living document. It is essentially dead."
__Chuckles the Aesops [sic] Retreat ass clown, reply #4



(https://lintvwane.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/antonin-scalia-memorial.png?w=650) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1iMeS7u3LAhUCRSYKHXu9AEEQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwane.com%2F2016%2F02%2F13%2Freports-associate-justice-antonin-scalia-found-dead%2F&psig=AFQjCNGw9A-C8EhYsZpuOd3mzHS3kVXPYQ&ust=1459614523594739)

"The Constitution is dead, dead, dead."
__US Supreme Court ass clown

does Bill Whittledick ever leave his basement?

hawks, if you think posting those pics makes you credible, you are dead wrong.

DUMB_john, you're brain dead. What you really need to do is shut the fuck up and stick that empty head of yours back up your ass where you usually keep it.

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.” 

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.


This conception of corporate personhood has profound and beneficial economic consequences. It means that the obligations the law imposes on the corporation, such as liability for harms caused by the firm’s operations, are not generally extended to the shareholders. Limited liability protects the owners’ personal assets, which ordinarily can’t be taken to pay the debts of the corporation. This creates incentives for investment, promotes entrepreneurial activity, and encourages corporate managers to take the risks necessary for growth and innovation. That’s why the Supreme Court, in business cases, has held that “incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legally distinct entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

Shut the fuck up, hawkshit, and pound salt.

To: jim, D2D, and sweetwater5s9

corporation: An entity (usually a business) having authority under law to act as a single person distinct  from the shareholders who own it and having rights to issue stocks and exist indefinitely.

person: A human being (also termed natural person)

artificial person: An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imagined, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being.

Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (1999)

jivin' jim et al,

A corporation is not a natural person. A corporation is an entity created by law and given authority under law to act as a person. Corporations are artificial persons, not human beings. Corporations are not people.

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.” 

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

sweetwater5s9,

I'm not doubting the validity of that assertion. But there's nothing in the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward ruling that supports the argument that a corporation is a natural person. Truth is, that landmark decision dealt with an entirely different issue--application of the Contract Clause of the US Constitution to private citizens. Your citing that case here is irrelevant

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.”

I know. (See reply #54.)

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.

I know. (See reply #54.)

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

At issue here is not whether the stock holders of a corporation have constitutional rights; they obviously do have constitutional rights and so does their corporation. The real issue here is whether corporations are real people, as jivin' jim and D2Dunderhead have argued in this thread and would have us believe. But, obviously, their argument has a serious flaw: a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights so that it can act as a human being. But acting like a person does not make a corporation a real person. Does it, sweetwater5s9? (See reply #54.)
 

 

hawks has no idea how really stupid he sounds.

omiaqt: It would seem to me that liberals are a confused lot.

omiaqt,

After reading the posts in this thread, what's obvious to me is the fact that right-wingnuts chuck_curtis, D2D, duke_john, jim, KensanIV, omiaqt, and sweetwater5s9 are a very confused lot. And if you either can't or won't admit that obvious fact, then you should change your pseudonym from omiaqt to oimnidiot. 

We're not confused.  You are, foreigner.

D2D: Proving not one of the liberals responding to this post bothered to actually watch the video! [sic]

D2D, where's proof that your lying, right-wingnut ass actually watched Bill "Witless" Whittle's error-filled video?

Actually the video was filled with facts and no errors!

You would know that if you bothered to actually watch the video!

D2Dumbstruck,

Unlike your lying ass, I actually did watch Witless Whittle's video. And I speak with utmost confidence when I say it is nothing more than right-wingnut, opinionated bunkum.

1965hawks lies, again!

Name one fact Whittle uttered you say is wrong and explain why you think it is wrong!

Damn Hawks!!!  What a nasty mouth.  Do you think such language makes you sound more intelligent? 

I will make no apologizes for being a right winger... Anymore that I would expect you to apologize for being a left winger.  I expect respect and offer respect for other views. 

Why can you not do the same?

D2Deflecter, why don't you actually state and defend what you believe is a fact that Bullshittin' Bill presented in his video?

Damn Hawks!!! [sic]  What a nasty mouth.[!]  Do you think such language makes you sound more intelligent?

Do you wacko right-wingnuts think Donald Trump's vile language makes his idiot ass sound intelligent? Evidently, you do. Isn't that right, Ken? 

I will make no apologizes for being a right winger[,] [a]nymore that I would expect you to apologize for being a left winger.  I expect respect and offer respect for other views.

Don't try to lecture me about respect until you acknowledge the disrespectfulness of the GOP's presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. 

Why can you not do the same?

Why don't you shove your condescending bullshit back up your arse from whence it came. Then you can take a seat and shut the fuck up, Knucklehead Ken.

Seems 1965hawks has no idea what he disagrees with or why!

Sad and pathetic!

hawks is an impotent little worm from a foreign country.  He wants to bully Americans with no logic but lots of aggression.

D2Dumbunny: Seems 1965hawks has no idea what he disagrees with or why! [sic]

D2D, it's an obvious fact that your DUMB ass never knows what the fuck you're you're talking about. You're nothing more than one of forum's know-nothing, right-wingnut,  ass clowns.

Obviously Hawkie has turned into a Loser... And thinks that the rest of us do not see what he has become.

Does it make him a better or more respected poster?  He can answer that. 

I do not think that Donald can expect his vote. 

Obviously[,] Hawkie has turned into a Loser [a]nd thinks that the rest of us blah blah blah blah blah....

Take a seat and shut the fuck up, Knucklehead Ken. It's obvious that you don't really have anything to say; you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. So go sit in the corner and don your dunce cap. Come back when you decide to discuss the original issue--whether the Constitution is a living document. I have better things to do than waste my time with your right-wingnut foolishness. 

You've proven the point... YOU ARE A LOSER.

The only point you've proved here is the fact that you're an idiot who doesn't seem to realise that attacking me personally in no way at all refutes my argument.Take a seat and shut the fuck up, Knucklehead Ken.

Seems 1965hawks has no idea what he disagrees with or why!

Sounds as if he is on drugs.  A big loser with a big mouth.

hawkie is a foreigner who gets off on pushing Americans around.

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.

Justices said that corporations have constitutional rights.

and corporations clearly do not, asshole, that is why we laugh at how fucked up that ruling was!!  how can you be so fucking stupid?  do cars have human rights?  they are run by people.  how about guns?  they are controlled by people.  what the fuck makes you morons think the Constitution somehow even mentioned corporations, much less wanted them to have the same rights as human beings? how can you make yourself believe such simple minded bullshit? 

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad) (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit), that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_of_Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward) – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter) is a contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract), the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),^{[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-16)} which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise--
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.

sweetwater5s9: Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights. Justices said that corporations have constitutional rights.

sweetwater5s9,

What you posted above neither refutes nor debunks any point I've argued here. You're simply repeating evidence I've already provided to support my argument. (See reply #54.)

 

why do you think recognizing corporations are subject to regulations and liable for damages if their corporate policies cause damage, and can, as a legal entity, create documents that have legal weight in court means THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?  you post shit and it actually proves the opposite of what you think it does BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID. 

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad) (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit), that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_of_Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward) – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter) is a contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract), the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted.

This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),^{[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-16)} which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise--the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.

In contracts.  so the fuck what, dumbass?  that is not saying they have constitutional rights.  how stupid are you?  when you get a loan from a bank, if you ever could, you are signing a contract with a corporation.  and they have legal rights to repossess your car or house if you do not make payments.  does that mean the bank has human rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?  why are you so stupid?

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad) (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit), that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.

(See reply#54, sweetwater5s9.)


In 1818, the United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_of_Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward) – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter) is a contract (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract), the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts."

(See reply #54, sweetwater5s9.))



To: sweetwater5s9

To have legal personality means to be capable of having legal rights and obligations^{[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#cite_note-oxdic-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#cite_note-2)} within a certain legal system, such as entering into contracts, suing, and being sued.^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#cite_note-3)} Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_capacity), the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_obligations). In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name.

Legal persons (lat. persona iuris) are of two kinds: natural persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution) (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, or fictitious persons, lat. persona ficta) – groups of individuals, such as corporations, which are treated by law as if they are persons.^{[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#cite_note-oxdic-1)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#cite_note-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#cite_note-5)} While human beings acquire legal personhood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood) when they are born, juridical persons do so when they are incorporated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)) in accordance with law.

1965hawks you just proved Sweetwater correct!

Did you know?

Know I didn't know that, D2D. Would you mind explaining how I did it?

The Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.


The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted.

This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),^{[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#cite_note-16)} which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise--the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.

  Scalia was right!


There is nothing in the constitution that grants special rights to certain groups of citizens. Especially perverts!

The law of nature are the laws of God, who's authority can never be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his (Gods) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHGzc4Cp8e3kHRmWljfoZ6SPiiFooLsrmiOTsQSG0RaZzjmXyi)

Scalia was right [;] [t]here is nothing in the [C]onstitution that grants special rights to certain groups of citizens[,] [e]specially perverts[.]

So you should never expect the Constitution to grant special rights to perverts like you. Huh, sine-qua-non?

Nice I selfie you posted there birdshitforbrains !!!

ROFL (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

sweetwater5s9: The Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.

To whom it may concern: Notice that sweetwater5s9 failed to name a single US Supreme Court case to which she alluded. And also notice that, apparently, sweetwater5s9 doesn't know the meaning of ispe dixit.

ipse dixit [Latin "he himself said it"] Something asserted but not proved.

Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (1999)

dictum (obiter dictum): a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it.

ibid.



ipse dixit: An unsupported assertion, usually by a person of standing; a dictum.


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2011)

dictum: Law A side remark made in a judicial opinion that is not necessary for the opinion in the case and therefore is not to be regarded as establishing the law of the case or setting legal precedent. Also called obiter dictum.

ibid.

He produced sounds as he thumped his chest and shouted how superior he is.

You have to wonder why 1965hawks hates productive people so very much!

duke_joke,

You and DaBozo aren't "productive" people. Truth is, you are rather stupid people, to say the least.

You have to wonder why 1965hawks hates productive people so very much!

If you don't hate productive people, why are you so intent on stripping them of their rights, 1965hawks?

I can imagine hawkiepoop thumping his chest like a gorilla, demanding respect.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/89/70/12/897012bcc4ffc9447f19e79001ff7945.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8r4LYq6XMAhVHFz4KHajoCAIQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F489555421964734762%2F&psig=AFQjCNE3TZlijtCVo1vbfHP9KF-45W4TRQ&ust=1461520325665050)

You have to wonder why 1965hawks hates productive people so very much!

All the rational discussants in this forum wonder why you're so fucking stupid, D2D. We wonder, among other things, when your D2Dumb ass will learn the difference between an exclamation point[!] and a period [.].

If you don't hate productive people, why are you so intent on stripping them of their rights, 1965hawks?

Evidently, somebody stripped your idiot ass of what little brain you had a long time ago, D2Demented. You've been nothing but an ass clown for all the time you've been posting on this message board.

1965hawks' arguments exposed for the crap they are he resorts to mindlessly puerile invective!

Pathetic!

Is there any other kind?  Without a literal interpretation, that's like not having any Constitution at all.


Which is like not having any Constitution at all.  Imagine playing poker where the rules were "living" and open to interpretation.  All of a sudden a STRAIGHT beats a FULL HOUSE.


Yep.  Republicans hate chaos and disorder.  We hate lawlessness.  We hate the idea that criminals can do whatever they like as long as they interpret the laws according to whatever suits them.

Literal interpretation provides order and justice.

Hey, Hooty:
 
The right wanted slavery gone, the left did NOT.  Read your history.

It is very obvious, that the left believes they can adopt any sort of stand if there is enough left wing video supporters who stand with the left wing regardless of reality

And unfortunately there is more than enough of them who (have no idea) but cling to the left wing bullchit.  And believe this will carry them to any sort of majority, 

We cannot really understand such dreams or hopes. Without revealing the necessity for truth and reality. 


Seriously what have any of these left wingers done to deserve any votes or support? What programs have any of them preformed

I understand that it may be anti_bush... or else you have failed to wake up to the Obama beliefs.  He is far worse than Bush ever hoped or intended to be.   

duke_john: I can imagine hawkiepoop thumping his chest like a gorilla, demanding respect.

And I bet duke_john is sitting there with smirk a on his ugly mug, convinced that his dumb ass actually knows what the fuck he's babbling about.

LOL   

Of course I know what I am saying.  You're just like so many people with a superiority complex but are seen by people as fools.

You're a fool, hawkiepoop.

duke_john: Of course I know what I am saying.

Stop lying, you empty-headed moron. You don't even believe you know what the fuck you're babbling about.

HAHAHA


You're just like so many people with a superiority complex but are seen by people as fools. You're a fool, hawkiepoop.

Yeah...right, dickhead-john. That's a classic example of your own inferiority complex--and, of course, your stupidity and ignorance. And, needless to say, you'll always be the fool in any debate with me.

LOL

The Constitution provides for adding amendments and it is clear on the process.   That is the only way the document is "living".

So you agree the Constitution is indeed a living document rather than an inflexible document etched in stone that can't be adjusted to reflect contemporary thought. Isn't that what you're admitting here, sweetwater5s9?

Is what hawkshit does here qualify as a debate?  I thought the buffoon was doing stand up comedy.

Yes, you can amend the Constitution.

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States (https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html) is derived from Article V of the Constitution (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html). After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/united-states-code.html).

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. 

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The 27th amendment is unique in that it took nearly 200 years since it was proposed to actually be ratified by the states.  The 27th amendment deals with pay raises or decreases for members of Congress. 

You may wonder why an amendment could be ratified almost 200 years after its proposal.  In the Supreme Court case of Coleman v. Miller the court ruled that if the amendment had an unspecified date, then the state legislatures could approve the amendment at any time.  You may remember that some amendments, such as the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition specified a frame of seven years that would render the amendment “inoperative.”  The amendment that would become the 27th amendment did not have such a provision, which allowed the final states, Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois to all ratify the amendment in May of 1992 and force its ratification over the objections of some elected officials. 

Only 38 states were required to ratify the amendment, but Kentucky found out that it had ratified the amendment decades earlier and the few remaining states all ratified the amendment in quick succession before the Archivist of the United States certified the amendment.  Congress would then pass a resolution agreeing the amendment was valid, ending the challenges to it.

http://kids.laws.com/27th-amendment

The Constitution is a living document and what you've posted in replies #111 and #112 are good examples that support that argument. If the Constitution were not a living document, it could not be amended to apply to contemporary issues. Thanks for making my point.

Again, 1965hawks reads what isn't written!

Saying the Constitution can be amended only through constitutional means doesn't mean it is a living document that changes with the direction of the political winds!

Our forefathers when the wrote that document understood the facts that it could have been wrong or some of it changed.  That is why they added that provision called Amendments to the Constitution. They made it particularly difficult to change on purpose... and since it was written, there have actually changed it very few times...considering how old the document is and how many years it has been the foundation of this nation.


Just for a giggle.  They still have all references to God on our buildings in DC. As well we have outlawed the Ten Commandments from public buildings... regardless of what the courts have ruled.

Did you ever notice that we still ask you to raise your hand and swear on a bible that you are telling the truth in any testimony Or as well when being sworn into office (or the military) you still have to use that Holy Book.

Sort of a dichotomy, don't you think?

Hawk,

The constitution can only be amended by amendments.  Not by creative interpretation.  If you want to change the constitution, do it the right way, through the statutory process.

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

D2DOOFAS: Again, 1965hawks reads what isn't written! Saying the Constitution can be amended only through constitutional means doesn't mean it is a living document that changes with the direction of the political winds!

No, D2DOOFAS. Truth is, your D2DUMB ass is lying again. When did I ever say the constitution "can only be amended by constitutional means?" Your pal, the bombastic and long-winded and bombastic sweetwater5s9, has been the the only one babbling  about amending the Constitution in this thread. Remember? Evidently it's your D2DOOFAS ass that's reading what isn't there, but that comes as no surprise to me. Your penchant for hallucinating in this forum is well-documented.

More ad hominems from hawkiepoop, without him addressing the issue.

The Constitution provides for adding amendments and it is clear on the process.   That is the only way the document is "living".

 
Read it again, 1965hawks!

Obviously you failed to comprehend what I wrote!

Dan: The [C]onstitution can only be amended by amendments[;] [n]ot by creative interpretation.

Dan, I don't remember your objecting to Scalia's "creative interpretation" in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). 

What creative interpretation?  Scalia applied the literal meaning of the Constitution.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That's not a "creative" interpretation.  That's a direct reading.

No wonder you didn't hear me object to it; because "it" never happened.

Sweetwater, Thanks, I appreciate the research that you are willing to do in order to prove the left-wing Obama lites wrong, as well your patience.  I would have told them they were full of **it and go pound sand up their patooties.

Dan: What creative interpretation?

Scalia's judicial activism in District of Columbia v. Heller. That creative interpretation, Delusional Dan.

Scalia applied the literal meaning of the Constitution--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

That's not the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, Delusional Dan. That's Scalia's "creative re-interpretation of the Second Amendment, which, in effect, rewrote that amendment and changed its meaning entirely. In 1791, the states ratified the Second Amendment with the understanding that it would eternally preclude Congress from making any law that would infringe the right of the people to render service in a state's federally recognized militia without due cause. The great fear at the time was that Congress might some day pass laws that would disarm state militias. The constitutional right to own, possess, or have access to firearms for personal use was never the issue. And the states, whose primary concern was the preservation and efficiency of their militias, would had never ratified the Second Amendment  had known they were ratifying a constitutional amendment that protected the peoples' personal firearms rather than the military arms of their "well-regulated militias."


That's not a "creative" interpretation.  That's a direct reading.

Obviously, you're still confused, Delusional Dan. Compare the so-called originalist Scalia's creative interpretation of the Second Amendment

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

to the direct and original reading of that amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 


No wonder you didn't hear me object to it; because "it" never happened.

Dan: No wonder you didn't hear me object to it; because "it" never happened.

Oh yeah, Dan, "it" did happen. Scalia's judicial activism was in full view and his creative interpretation of US history and the Second Amendment was witnessed by all. But you apparently didn't object because you had your head crammed up either Scalia or Lapierre's lying ass.

Sweetwater, Thanks, I appreciate the research that you are willing to do in order to prove the left-wing Obama lites wrong, as well your patience.  I would have told them they were full of **it and go pound sand up their patooties.


Thanks.   It is hard not to at times...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

weetwater,


Thanks, I appreciate the research that you are willing to do in order to prove the left-wing Obama lites wrong.


KensanIV, reply#124, 25 April 2016.



KensanIV, I hope you aren't referring to sweetwater5s9's sloppy research that got her ass nailed in
"Militias and the Second Amendment, Abortion, and Feminism," reply #141, 25 April 2016.

LOL

You were already debunked on militias and the Constitution, hawk.   No need to keep lying...

Delusional Hawk,

Why do you think the Constitution does not say what it says?

You see 1965hawks believes the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

As if government fears having its arms taken from it!

In his country, there is no right to keep and bear arms by the citizens.  He wants to bring that over here from there, his own "sharia law."

sweetwater5s9: You were already debunked on militias and the Constitution, hawk.

Really? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Go back and read "Militias and the Second Amendment, Abortion, and nd Feminism," reply #141. I've been ripping you a new asshole all day long and you have the audacity to imply that you've been debunking me?

Yeah...Right, sweetnutjob.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



No need to keep lying... [sic]

Your're obviously a liar if you say I've been debunked by your dumb ass, you lying little bitch. Your claim of my lying is just as ridiculous as you right-wingnts' silly habit of ending declaratory sentences with an ellipsis[...] instead of with a period.

1965hawks posts saying nothing!

As long as you know your bullshit has been debunked, hawk.   You can go back to your tantrums like a child, ok... 

Dan: Why do you think the Constitution does not say what it says?

That's not the question to be asked, Duped Dan. The question that should be asked is why Scalia thought the Constitution--namely the Second Amendment--says what it doesn't say.

"On June 26, 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a majority of the United States
Supreme Court, held in District of Columbia v. Heller1 that the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution confers onto U.S. citizens an individual right to keep and bear arms,
as opposed to a collective right to carry firearms in connection to potential militia service.2 The
decision sparked a wildfire within the legal community, spurning dozens of law review articles3
all asking the same question: where did Justice Scalia find this individual right to bear arms in
the Second Amendment?"

Supreme Misinterpretation: How the Supreme Court Got Heller Wrong.

http://nchchonors.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Gray-Alan-Final-Paper.pdf

You're an ass, foreigner.  Go back to your gun-banning country.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of afree State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall notbe [HIGHLIGHT=#NaNNaNNaN]infringed[/HIGHLIGHT] (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE)."

[/B]It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the Stat to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/10251396/5/stock-photo-10251396-sad-little-girl-in-dunce-cap.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw4-yXka3MAhWD6iYKHePGB2oQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Fphotos%2Fdunce%2Bcap&psig=AFQjCNEt0A5tlDdF4V06X9rMx9exT-V1hw&ust=1461788621856382)

It doesn't say the right of the Stat to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

Uh, yeah. We know that, you dumb little bitch.

Defeated 1965hawks declared himself typo policeman with is dictionary, plastic whistle and red pen!

Just when you think he cannot stoop any lower he does it in spades!

Just shut the fuck up, hawkiepoop.  You lost. 

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE)

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

Do you feel better, 1965hawks?

Once again, I have proven your claims are fallacious!

I get to pick what questions I ask, duped hawk.  So answer me.  Why do you think the Constitution does NOT say what it DOES say?


He didn't.  He thought the Constitution said what it said.  You're the one who thinks it doesn't.

Obviously you don't, given your assertion that individuals don't have a right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.

(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/10251396/5/stock-photo-10251396-sad-little-girl-in-dunce-cap.jpg)



1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

Stop ying, D2Dumbitch! That's what you keep saying, you DUMB little bitch.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

I  know, D2D. It actually says the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as active members of a governmentally regulated militia) shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

And the Second Amendment doesn't say that private ownership of firearms shall not be regulated by governmental authority. And, of course, it doesn't say that the people have a right to raise and maintain so-called citizen militias either. Does it?

You're still a DUMB little bitch, D2

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

You can always try to have our citizen militia outlawed through a Constitutional amendment.   Good luck... 

The USSC ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, domestic and foreign, not a right of the states to maintain a government militia.   The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

The only legal process you anti-gun and anti-citizen militia nuts have is a Constitutional amendment.  Get on it.  Good luck.

sweetwter5s9: The USSC ruled that  The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

sweetwater5s9,

Scalia's flawed thinking and judicial activism in Heller was  noted, roundl, criticized, and ridiculed, even by conservative judges.

"Yesterday, the NY Times highlighted (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/washington/21guns.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) the fact that two conservative federal judges, Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, have recently and strongly criticized Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller for being overly “activist” – a bitter insult to the proudly conservative Justice Scalia."

https://theusconstitution.org/text-history/439

According to the majority opinion in Heller (written by Scalia) the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, domestic and foreign, not a right of the states to maintain a government militia. 

How could Scalia come to the conclusion that the founders of this Republic relied on ordinary civilians to provide for national defense and domestic tranquility?

Of course, the assertion is both illogical and historically inaccurate. The Framers' Constitution allowed the states to retain and maintain their respective militias, just as they had done under the first constitution--The Articles of Confederation. But the Framers' also realised that the Colonies had won their independence in spite of, not because of the Militia. And for that reason the Framers had the good sense to provide for a standing army to be the primary defenders the nation and allowed Congress to call out state militias and place them under the control of the president in an emergency . The Framers would ha considered it an incredibly absurd notion to trust the defense of the Republic to ad hoc mobs of untrained and unorganised civilians(!) armed only with a hodge-podge collection of personal small arms ill-suited for warfare. Whoever wrote that bullshit sweetwater5s9 cited obviously didn't know what the hell he or she was talking about--just like my misinformed gun-nut opponents here in this forum.

 

If African Americans were citizens, observed Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn1) "it would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."[2] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn2) If this interpretation ignores that Articles I and II of the Bill of Rights designate the respective freedoms guaranteed therein to "the people" and not simply the citizens (much less a select group of orators or militia), contrariwise Dred Scott followed antebellum judicial thought in recognizing keeping and bearing arms as an individual right[3] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn3) protected from both federal and state infringement.[4] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn4) The exception to this interpretation were cases holding that the Second Amendment only protected citizens[5] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn5) from federal, not state,[6] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn6) infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, to provide judicial approval of laws disarming black freemen and slaves.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to overrule Dred Scott by extending individual constitutional rights to black Americans and by providing protection thereof against state infringement,[7] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn7) the question arises whether the framers of Amendment XIV and related enforcement legislation recognized keeping and bearing arms as an individual right on which no state could infringe. The congressional intent in respect to the Fourteenth Amendment is revealed in the debates over both Amendments XIII and XIV as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Anti-KKK Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

[ Originally published as Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 68-82 (1982) ("Other Views"). Reproduced in the 1982 Senate Report (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/), pg. 68-82. Dr. Halbrook is the author of
Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876
which may be obtained from amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275963314/)]

If African Americans were citizens, observed Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn1) "it would give blah blah blah blah....

The Constitution is a living. If the Constitution were not a living document as the so-called constitutional expert Scalia had argued , then involuntary servitude would still be the Law of the Land, because the Constitution (a dead document) could not had been amended to abolish slavery.
Since the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to overrule Dred Scott by extending individual constitutional rights to black Americans and by providing protection thereof against state infringement,[7] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html#fn7) the question arises whether the framers of Amendment XIV and related enforcement legislation recognized keeping and bearing arms as an individual right on which no state could infringe. The congressional intent in respect to the Fourteenth Amendment is revealed in the debates over both Amendments XIII and XIV as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Anti-KKK Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.


The obvious flaw in that argument is the false analogy of comparing slave laws with gun laws. A slave law is a blatant infringement of the inalienable right of liberty, a gun law that bans handguns within the limits of a certain city can hardly be called an infringement of liberty. Again, comparing chattel slavery with a gun law is a classic example of a false analogy, the two have nothing in common. Take what Halbrook says with a grain of salt.   

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

                                                                                                                                       

hawkiepoop says blah blah blah.  Again.

Now you've upset little hawkiepooh.

I've just completed reading all the post in this thread, beginning with Bill Whittle's error-filled and opinionated video that started this thread. In that video, Whittle made the preposterous claim that the Constitution of the United States of America is not a living document. (The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a similar claim, declaring the Constitution "Dead. Dead. Dead.")

In addition to them, our forum's "moderator" jim , who evidently believes every lie Bill Whittle pulls out his ass, and several other of our forum's right-wingers, apparently agree with Whittle's illogical claim. T reached that conclusion based on the fact that I read no objection to Whittle's historically inaccurate claim from any discussant on this forum's right. Instead, their only contribution to this discussion was the usual nonsensical right-wingnut talking points and meaningless gibberishthey evidently believe can be substituted for intelligent discourse.

In fact, no one from our forum's right offered a logical explanation of why they believe our Constitution is not a living document, so I call on all this thread's right-leaning discussants to give their final assessment of why they believe the Constitution of the United States of America is a dead document rather than a living one. I suspect this will be our last chance to discuss this topic before jim does  what he usually does--pull the plug--when he see's his right-wingers  losing the argument. So chuck_curtis, Dan, duke_john, D2D, flgirl, jim, kensanIV, omiaqt, and sweetwater5s9 you have the floor. Explain why you agree with Bill Whittle's claim that the Constitution is not a living document.   

There's a lot of flawed thinking from the SCOTUS.   Yes, it's past time to fix its many and various flawed interpretations with amendments to Constitution.  Until then, the Constitution is a dead letter.  The rulings don't square with the words on paper and the thinking behind them.  Until then, it's government by contemporary whim, not supreme law and reason.

One now has to go to case law to understand where we are at and how we got here.   The Constitution reads as if it is foreign to practice.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It doesn't say the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It's right there in the Constitution, clearly written.

In resolving the arms versus militia issue, language that combined a militia statement with a recognition of an individual right fitted Madison’s objectives perfectly.

“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.” [144]

Much of Madison’s handiwork underwent substantial editing in both the House and the Senate, but his militia and arms proposal survived relatively unscathed. In the version finally passed by the House, the order of the provisions was reversed: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” [145] Although the first casualties of the House’s editorial process were his preambles and explanations, the militia statement and the right to arms guarantee both were retained.

The other issues related to the military were dealt with more expeditiously. Madison restricted subjection of the militia to martial law in what would become the Fifth Amendment by guaranteeing jury trials to militiamen not in actual service during [p.40] times of war or public danger. [147] The involuntary quartering of soldiers was prohibited in what would become the Third Amendment. [148] Conscientious objection was addressed in an addendum to the militia statement, although that addendum was later removed by the Senate. [149]

Accordingly, Madison was able to resolve five of the arms- and military-related concerns that had been raised by the ratifying conventions.

In 1792, Congress enacted the first (and until 1903, the last) national Militia Act. [157] While this Act required all white males of military age to possess a rifle or musket–or, if enrolled in cavalry or artillery units, pistols and a sword–it did nothing to guarantee uniformity of calibers, fixed no standards of national drill, and failed even to provide a penalty for noncompliance.

The wisdom of Madison’s approach to the resolution of the militia issue was born out by subsequent events. The language relating to the militia, which he chose for inclusion in what became the Constitution’s Second and Fifth Amendments, was specific enough to satisfy both the supporters of the Renaissance militia ideal and the advocates of the Enlightenment theories of liberal democracy. The approach, therefore, resolved most of the concerns that had been raised during the ratification process.


Military Law Review
THE MILITIA AND THE CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL HISTORY
.................................................................................

A
militia
is
distinct

from

regular

military

forces,

which

are

units
of
professional

soldiers

maintained

both
in
war

and

peace
by
the

federal

government.




http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Militia

At issue in this thread is whether or not the United States Constitution is a living document. In reply #154 I noted how far away from the original issue this debate had strayed also noted that the previous posts submitted by those who believed the Constitution is not a living document had not actually provided evidence to support their argument. So in an attempt to get the discussion back on track in order to discuss the original issue, which is whether or not the Constitution of the United States is a living document, I asked that all those who not believe the Constitution is not a living document to submit a post explaining why they believe the Constitution, however, none of the responses received thus far  have yet to address the original issue.

The first response came from chuck_curtis. His response was mostly concerned with his disagreement with US Supreme Court decisions and his dissatisfaction with the way our federal government operates, however, his disagreement with Supreme Court decisions and the workings the central government does not support an argument that the Constitution isn't a living document.

The response from duke_john simply, says "It's right there." But notice that duke_john did not tell the reader exactly where in the Constitution does it say the Constitution is not a living document.

The issue here is whether or not the Constitution is a living document, but notice how D2D's response is both irrelevant and illogical. The meaning of the Second Amendment is not at issue here. And even if it were, D2D's debunked interpretation of that amendment would have no relevance. But that's beside the point: D2D's red herring doesn't provide evidenct to support the argument that the Constitution is not a living document

And, finally, I'll also remind sweetwater5s9 her long-winded post about the militia was, in essence, the same as D2D's; a red herring.  Posting irrelevant information about the history of the militia in America can hardly be considered evidence to support the claim that the Constitution of the United States of America is not a living document.





 

 
If any more proof of your inability to read was needed, you provided it.

I was agreeing with D2D, who said

Yes, you can amend the Constitution and that is the only way it is "living".

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States (https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html) is derived from Article V of the Constitution (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html). After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/united-states-code.html).

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. 

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/)

sweetwater5s9: Yes. you can amend the Constitution and that is the only way it is "living."

sweetwater5s9,

The fact that the Constitution can be amended is what makes  it a living document.  Duh!

amend: make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date.

living document (or dynamic document): a document that can be continually edited and updated.

So, therefore. the Constitution of the United States of America is, by definition, a living document.

Then amend it!

Unfortunately for you the American people like their rights and refuse to amend them away!

D2D: Unfortunately for you[,] the American people like their rights and refuse to amend them away.

D2D, so what does that rigmarole (read, red herring) you posted above mean? Do you or do you not believe the Constitution is a living document; is it or is it not a living document?

The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with what you say I want or what the American people want; at issue here is whether or not the Constitution is or is not a living document. What say you, D2DUUMMY?

((So, therefore. the Constitution of the United States of America is, by definition, a living document.))
 


A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

sweetwter5s9,

What the fuck is your problem? What the fuck are you babbling about?

 The fact that the Constitution can be amended, that it can be continually edited and updated to stay relevant, makes it a living document. If it had remained as originally written, it would not even include the Bill of Rights--the original (first ten amendments. The Constitution would had remained the same as the day it was ratified. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? 

1965hawks believes the constitution can be changed simply by court edict!

In New York, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison pushed for the ratification of the Constitution in a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. The essays, published in New York newspapers, provided a now-classic argument for a central federal government, with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches that checked and balanced one another.

When the first Congress convened in New York City in September 1789, the calls for amendments protecting individual rights were virtually unanimous. Congress quickly adopted 12 such amendments; by December 1791, enough states had ratified 10 amendments to make them part of the Constitution. Collectively, they are known as the Bill of Rights.

The Convention had been authorized merely to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation but, as Madison later wrote, the delegates, "with a manly confidence in their country," simply threw the Articles aside and went ahead with the building of a wholly new form of government.

They recognized that the paramount need was to reconcile two different powers -- the power of local control, which was already being exercised by the 13 semi-independent states, and the power of a central government. They adopted the principle that the functions and powers of the national government, being new, general and inclusive, had to be carefully defined and stated, while all other functions and powers were to be understood as belonging to the states. But realizing that the central government had to have real power, the delegates also generally accepted the fact that the government should be authorized -- among other things -- to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war and to make peace.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/the-formation-of-a-national-government/constitutional-convention.php

sweetwater5s9: In New York, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison pushed for the ratification of the Constitution in a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. The essays, published in New York newspapers, provided a now-classic argument for a central federal government, with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches that checked and balanced one another.

When the first Congress convened in blah blah blah blah....




sweetwater5s9,

A red herring, sometimes referred to as ignoring the question, sidetracks an issue by bringing up a totally unrelated issue.

What you're babbling about is probably true, but it has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. The issue here is whether or no the Constitution is a living document. Nothing you are babbling about here is even remotely addresses that question. All you're doing here is continually posting irrelevant distractions away from the main issue (red herrings).

Give it up, hawkshit.  No one buys your crap.  Peddle your papers elsewhere.

When the first Congress convened in New York City in September 1789, the calls for amendments protecting individual rights were virtually unanimous. Congress quickly adopted 12 such amendments; by December 1791, enough states had ratified 10 amendments to make them part of the Constitution. Collectively, they are known as the Bill of Rights.

The issue here is whether or no the Constitution is a living document.


A living document or dynamic document is a document that is continually edited and updated. A simple example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that permits anyone to freely edit its articles, in contrast to "dead" or "static" documents, such as an article in a single edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.

The U.S. Constitution can only be changed by the procedures set out in Article Five of the Constitution.

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.