Gov. Rick Perry Indicted On Felony Charges

I'm fine with persecuting every signer of the patriot act with high treason.

In fact I encourage it.

Statistically 69% of statistics are made up on the spot.

CNN news bulletin just in: "a recent study shows" <- read: we had John, Jimmy and Frank call 10 people.

That's a matter of debate, for nearly the whole of human history, most of those rights have been far from absolute, and even in 1776, they understood the need for limits.

w/e dude we both know your back peddling hard, especially since you wont drop it.


Nope Shall Not Be Infringed, in no way means "least restrictive means" If they meant "least restrictive means" they would have put that.



So your gonna go with more unconstitutional rules to back up why you think even more unconstitutional rules should be made. "Typical liberal debate tactic."

There is a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law. That's the basis for interpretation and why the LAWYERS who wrote it repeatedly clarified their meanings. Why is it you wave the constitution around when it supports your viewpoint and then wipe your *** with it when it doesn't? Go get some rest, all this posturing has to have tuckered you out.

Every society needs limits otherwise you'll have total chaos, the trick is finding the right balance between freedom and laws. Which makes the United States the best country in the world to live in. Before the law making regulation mongers took it over.

All your posturing you mean. Please Please tell me when the constitution did not support my view point. "when your liberal lawyers are not trying to rewrite it the way they want it"

P.S. None of the layers who wrote the constitution are alive, and the 2nd is the only amendment that states SHALL NOT.

Good that you brought that up, that is actually how natural rights came about.
Before the term natural rights was thought up, the divine right of kings was the most common rule of law.
A person, due to some divine bloodline or background had a higher power over his subjects, and this was unchallenged.
These subjects had no rights what so ever, and the divine king figure was basically God on earth to them.
During the age of enlightenment (17th century europe), a more pronounced distinction of individual, unalienable rights of any person on earth came about.
It formed the foundation for governments as we now know them.

But in fact even before that, in the 16th century, sir Thomas More already made this distinction when he opposed king Henry VIII as head of church AND state.
At his hearing for treason he spoke these words, challenging the divine lineage of kings:
"Some men say the earth is round and some men say it's flat.
But if it is round, can a command of the parliament make it flat?
And if it is flat, could the king order it to be round?"
Sir Thomas More was trialed and found guilty, and executed.

Yet what he said was very important.
It was, in my opinion, the first reversal on the ideology of a supreme ruler, the first mention in history of someone moving towards natural rights.
We later established these natural rights and built societies based on them.
The fact that some countries still violate them to this day doesn't make them any less absolute, true or necessary.

Cool.

Can you explain legal scrutiny to Jet and Altima?

Instant I need to welcome you to FFXIAH.com. Its nice to have another rational person on the forum.

Uh, the 4th, 8th, and 9th have the the words "shall not", several others have similar wording... Liberal lawyers aren't trying to rewrite anything, in fact, when most of the current interpretations of regulation began, there weren't even "liberals".

Alt, you are the last person on here who I would consider rational.

Can he also explain to you that the courts weren't granted this power.

I don't see the point of the lecture or what it has to do with the topic.

You got me. Should have said "Shall Not Be Infringed" but i'm seriously getting tired of writing it. However, You forgot to tell me when the constitution did not support my view point.

The courts have it, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Says the guy who supports abortion but doesn't think executing convicted murders is the morale thing to do.

They have it illegally.

The constitution doesn't support your point of view, it's a document that organizes our government. You can latch onto one paragraph written for a different purpose hundreds of years ago in the literal interpretation while ignoring the actual meaning of it or the dozens of legal decisions concerning it, but that puts you in the same category as religious extremists.

and both are logical rationally thought out deductions, a process that escapes you.

Care to file a lawsuit? I wonder how the supreme court would rule on it....

It was written for a singular purpose, only you seem to be confused as tot what that is, as it's clearly and well documented, it has one interpretation, one meaning.

The "legal decisions" weren't legal ones to be made, they therefore are irrelevant.

You wrote how throughout history natural law has not been absolute.
Through my little history lesson, I tried to illustrate that even though courts may rule against you, a head of state may condone your statements and actions, but regardless of all that, natural laws are absolute.

Them being violated does not change that.

Please explain to us how the courts got this magical power to rewrite the Constitution of The United States of America without a 2/3 vote from congress or the states. Is it 2/3 or 3/4.. don't wanna look it up atm.

and therein lies to prove as to why they should never have been allowed to take the power, now you're catching on.

Logical thought is not encouraged in this forum just to let you know. The liberal mind cannot handle it.

again with the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE "us vs them" rhetoric.

I can't understand why we agree on this but absolutely nothing else, its really strange don't you think?

Not at all, you're a tool.