This election is far too important.... because the Supreme Court!

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." FEDERALIST No.47 James Madison
 
Is this leagal? said:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." FEDERALIST No.47 James Madison
Click to expand...
And that's exactly what we now have; a tyranny of the elite. Wise men our founding fathers!

Terry
 
Ole James Madison, be going to his place tomorrow!
 
I suppose we would be better off with a king rather than with a government that we can mostly replace somewhat peacefully every 2, 4, and 6 years that is made up of several branches that have checks and balances over each other.
 
Charlie said:
I suppose we would be better off with a king rather than with a government that we can mostly replace somewhat peacefully every 2, 4, and 6 years that is made up of several branches that have checks and balances over each other.
Click to expand...

At least with a king we have but one neck to stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SC380 said:
So using the results of the actions that we have seen of every justice appointed by the left in recent history, as opposed to letting your bullshit clog my ears, it would be very safe to assume that two justices appointed by Hillary would have been even worse on gun issues.
Click to expand...
Yeah! The conservative appointees kept us from getting Obamacare and screwing over the entire American populace! Wait, they didn't?
 
SPM said:
Like a great percentage of your posts here, you are incorrect.

I would argue that it’s a very small percentage that want it, and of those, many have probably never seen real war.

But there is a growing population of gun owners in general, and veteran gun owners in particular, who are resigned to the fact that it is inevitable, and would rather face the inevitability while they can bear the brunt of the cost, rather than Hope the price is paid by their children and grandchildren.
Click to expand...
As a relatively young guy on this board it always bothers me when the older generations talk about how the young generations are screwed while most took no action to try and stop the slide when they could.
 
B00ger said:
At least with a king we have but one neck to stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I recall from reading history books, we did not just have to fight one person to rid ourselves from being under the thumb of a king. We had to fight his armies, navies, and loyalists.


ChickenHawk said:
As a relatively young guy on this board it always bothers me when the older generations talk about how the young generations are screwed while most took no action to try and stop the slide when they could.
Click to expand...

Every generation says the same thing. Nothing really changes all that much.
 
gc70 said:
The general media's news article is the typical caliber of nothing-burger coverage of a potential Supreme Court case. Nevertheless, the AP article cited ended with the prominent mention of the Virgina Beach shooter's use of a silencer.

Before criticizing the Supreme Court for refusing to take a case, it is usually better to read the ruling under appeal and then decide on specific reasons for criticism.

Some thoughts from my reading of the 10th Circuit's ruling, which make it abundantly clear to me why the Supreme Court did not take the case:
  • The NFA is based on Congress' taxing power and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
  • The defendants argued 2A covers a SBR without bothering to argue against Miller, which is still a valid SCOTUS precedent that says 2A does not cover a short-barrelled shotgun (a close enough analogy to an SBR for the court).
  • Silencers are accessories rather than "bearable arms" as discussed in Heller and are not covered by the 2A.
  • Regulating the commercial activity of making and selling firearms and accessories is based on the commerce clause and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
The 10 Circuit's ruling had an extremely interesting concurring opinion, which is quoted in whole below (emphasis added):
Click to expand...

I found an interesting article from January, from a great pro-gun writer at National Review, that may help explain what's going on.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/the-supreme-court-has-taken-a-strange-gun-rights-case/
 
ChickenHawk said:
Yeah! The conservative appointees kept us from getting Obamacare and screwing over the entire American populace! Wait, they didn't?
Click to expand...
I specified gun issues. The supreme court's job isn't to overturn every law passed by congress...I think you are confused about what the supreme court does.
 
SC380 said:
I specified gun issues. The supreme court's job isn't to overturn every law passed by congress...I think you are confused about what the supreme court does.
Click to expand...
I know what they do pretty well, and I realize you said gun issues in your post. Even still why is my comment, while snarky, not valid? It was conservatives that helped keep Obamacare around? They had a chance to strike it down and voted with the Democrat appointed justices.
 
ChickenHawk said:
I know what they do pretty well, and I realize you said gun issues in your post. Even still why is my comment, while snarky, not valid? It was conservatives that helped keep Obamacare around? They had a chance to strike it down and voted with the Democrat appointed justices.
Click to expand...

It could be valid but that isn't the point I was arguing when you quoted me.

I am willing to listen even if it is snarky. On what basis were they supposed to strike down Obamacare considering it was a law passed by congress and the president? Constitutionally, how is Obamacare any more illegal than social security or medicare? It seems like the better solution would have been for the republican held house and senate to pass a law that killed Obamacare like Trump was asking for but what legal basis was there for the supreme court to strike down obamacare?
 
Last edited:
SC380 said:
It could be valid but that isn't the point I was arguing when you quoted me.

I am willing to listen even if it is snarky. On what basis were they supposed to strike down Obamacare considering it was a law passed by congress and the president? Constitutionally, how is Obamacare any more illegal than social security or medicare? It seems like the better solution would have been for the republican held house and senate to pass a law that killed Obamacare like Trump was asking for but what legal basis was there for the supreme court to strike down obamacare?
Click to expand...
Who here thinks Obama care, social security, and Medicare are socialist programs? They're all illegal, and unconstitutional. Criminals passed the crap, and broke our Highest Law doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Is this leagal? said:
Who here thinks Obama care, social security, and Medicare are socialist programs? They're all illegal, and unconstitutional. Criminals passed the crap, and broke our Highest Law doing so.
Click to expand...

Based on what particular clause in the constitution, as opposed to rhetoric and random opinion?
 
SC380 said:
Based on what particular clause in the constitution, as opposed to rhetoric and random opinion?
Click to expand...
The federal government was not expressly given that authority in the Constitution, therefore they don't have the power to do it.
 
Last edited:
SC380 said:
It could be valid but that isn't the point I was arguing when you quoted me.

I am willing to listen even if it is snarky. On what basis were they supposed to strike down Obamacare considering it was a law passed by congress and the president? Constitutionally, how is Obamacare any more illegal than social security or medicare? It seems like the better solution would have been for the republican held house and senate to pass a law that killed Obamacare like Trump was asking for but what legal basis was there for the supreme court to strike down obamacare?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly if it was a tax then it was considered unconstitutional was the main argument being made. Some conservative judges decided to admit it was a tax, but then agreed with the Democrat appointed justices to allow it anyways.
 
ChickenHawk said:
If I remember correctly if it was a tax then it was considered unconstitutional was the main argument being made. Some conservative judges decided to admit it was a tax, but then agreed with the Democrat appointed justices to allow it anyways.
Click to expand...
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 we set the limits of our SCOTUS and of any inferior federal courts that
our servant Congress creates…“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and in Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made...; to all cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to
controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of
the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
So.
We stipulate that SCOTUS and inferior federal courts only have jurisdiction if a case arises under the
Constitution, under federal laws or treaties, or if these United States are parties to the case, etc.; in
other words, if a case arises under laws or treaties that violate the U.S. Constitution we do not let our
servants decide, “Oh, trust us; this is a federal matter”. No; we sovereigns decide that.
the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) we stipulate: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”. That
means any federal law creating an office or activity not ‘in pursuance of’ the U.S. Constitution – in other
words, not enumerated in it – is of no force or effect.
 
ChickenHawk said:
If I remember correctly if it was a tax then it was considered unconstitutional was the main argument being made. Some conservative judges decided to admit it was a tax, but then agreed with the Democrat appointed justices to allow it anyways.
Click to expand...

Are all taxes illegal then?

ChickenHawk said:
The federal government was not expressly given that authority in the Constitution, therefore they don't have the power to do it.
Click to expand...

Isn't Congress given the authority to make laws? If they can't pass any laws beyond what is in the original constitution, why do we have a branch whose only job is to make laws?
 
SC380 said:
Are all taxes illegal then?



Isn't Congress given the authority to make laws? If they can't pass any laws beyond what is in the original constitution, why do we have a branch whose only job is to make laws?
Click to expand...
We have a branch that has combined all three, making it illegal. Income tax is most assuredly illegal. Unless you work for the government.
They're givin authority to make Laws in the pursuance thereof (the Constitution)
Do they?
 
Last edited:
SC380 said:
Are all taxes illegal then?



Isn't Congress given the authority to make laws? If they can't pass any laws beyond what is in the original constitution, why do we have a branch whose only job is to make laws?
Click to expand...
It wasn't supposed to be a career either. The Constitution is meant to limit the size of the federal government. That is why the powers granted it are specifically written. Take it up with the founders, but that is what the document does.
 
Charlie said:
As I recall from reading history books, we did not just have to fight one person to rid ourselves from being under the thumb of a king. We had to fight his armies, navies, and loyalists.




Every generation says the same thing. Nothing really changes all that much.
Click to expand...

Har har! Ya got me there!

What you may have also apparently missed from your study of history is how it is no better to kneel before thousands of petty tyrants here than one main tyrant elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ChickenHawk said:
It wasn't supposed to be a career either. The Constitution is meant to limit the size of the federal government. That is why the powers granted it are specifically written. Take it up with the founders, but that is what the document does.
Click to expand...

If I recall, the argument was that a fine couldn’t be levied if people refused Obama care. But, if it was labeled a “tax” then it could be applied accords state lines as the Fed has jurisdiction over interstate affairs. So the sides were “This is a tax, so we can do it.” V “This is a fine, so you can’t do it.” The finding the Court held was that it was a tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ChickenHawk said:
It wasn't supposed to be a career either. The Constitution is meant to limit the size of the federal government. That is why the powers granted it are specifically written. Take it up with the founders, but that is what the document does.
Click to expand...

I can't take it up with the founders and they aren't the ones here misinterpreting my posts anyway. You didn't answer my questions but if I remember correctly there are no term limits in the constitution so I am not sure if I follow your interpretation that "it" wasn't supposed to be a career. What is "it"?
 
Last edited:
SC380 said:
I can't take it up with the founders and they aren't the ones here misinterpreting my posts anyway. You didn't answer my questions but if I remember correctly there are no term limits in the constitution so I am not sure if I follow your interpretation that "it" wasn't supposed to be a career. What is "it"?
Click to expand...

Considering they only received an annual salary starting in 1855 it is pretty easy to see that representatives were not meant to be “full time career politicians” making only a per diem stipend while in session.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
Considering they only received an annual salary starting in 1855 it is pretty easy to see that representatives were not meant to be “full time career politicians” making only a per diem stipend while in session.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And were required to meet at least once a year - so rare was the expectation that they meddle in the affairs of the lives of the People.
 
B00ger said:
If I recall, the argument was that a fine couldn’t be levied if people refused Obama care. But, if it was labeled a “tax” then it could be applied accords state lines as the Fed has jurisdiction over interstate affairs. So the sides were “This is a tax, so we can do it.” V “This is a fine, so you can’t do it.” The finding the Court held was that it was a tax.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

The Constitution gives Congress a plenary (unqualified or absolute) power of taxation, so adopting a tax for people who didn't buy insurance was within the scope of constitutional powers.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to fine people for not buying a product, so a fine for not buying health insurance would be unconstitutional.
 
SPM said:
The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case challenging suppressors' inclusion in the NFA....

https://apnews.com/0958862d44824d9596feb5ec097273be

Tell me again how the Supreme Court is the Conservative savior we've all been looking for.....
Click to expand...

Only idiots look for anything federal to be a conservative savior, for anything. There will be no "reforming" a federal behemoth of this size. The only reform possible is its destruction. We can hope for a peaceful dismemberment and better states formed from the breakup, or we can have a totalitarian unistate which will collapse, after it murders a couple hundred million people.

The only hope I have for the former is the invocation of an article V convention, but there is so much ridiculous disinformation believed by conservatives and unreasoning, historically inaccurate ideas about how the first constitution was a "runaway convention" that I really have just sat back to watch the upcoming train wreck. Frankly I look for most pro gunners to roll over and expose their bellies just like the USSC conservatives and the US Congress Conservatives and the conservative US presidents and ....... It will be for the most noble of reasons, too. I have a wife and kids and who will look after them.. etc etc.

Nobody from DC is going to save you. Ever. Like Apple says..... Think Different.
 
B00ger said:
Har har! Ya got me there!

What you may have also apparently missed from your study of history is how it is no better to kneel before thousands of petty tyrants here than one main tyrant elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The good thing about thousands of petty tyrants is that they never agree on much of anything and will fight bitterly among themselves about what type of tyranny they want to impose upon the serfs. It is also comforting that a serf can become a petty tyrant and replace one of the elite petty tyrants.

Our constitutional system works fairly well when used by people who try to abide by the Constitution. It does not work worth a flip for people who try to see how they can avoid abiding by the Constitution.
 
B00ger said:
If I recall, the argument was that a fine couldn’t be levied if people refused Obama care. But, if it was labeled a “tax” then it could be applied accords state lines as the Fed has jurisdiction over interstate affairs. So the sides were “This is a tax, so we can do it.” V “This is a fine, so you can’t do it.” The finding the Court held was that it was a tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But a "tax" has specific legislative rules which must be followed in passing it. Obabacare, if memory serves, did not follow that pattern.
 
SPM said:
Like a great percentage of your posts here, you are incorrect.

I would argue that it’s a very small percentage that want it, and of those, many have probably never seen real war.

But there is a growing population of gun owners in general, and veteran gun owners in particular, who are resigned to the fact that it is inevitable, and would rather face the inevitability while they can bear the brunt of the cost, rather than Hope the price is paid by their children and grandchildren.
Click to expand...

after 20+ years in the military I can tell you that if it comes to that war the military will be split as to if they follow illegal orders. The death and destruction would be to the point were we will no longer exist the only question is would we be speaking Russian or Chinese. It is my opinion and you can call it wrong all you want But know I PAID THE PRICE to have that opinion
 
HMP said:
How so?
Dont believe in the 16th Amendment?
Click to expand...

What if I said "no, I don't?"
1) Do you believe the 16th amendment was in fact passed correctly (according to the Constitution)?
2) If so, are you aware of the arguments/claims that it was NOT in fact passed according to the dictates in the Constitution?
3) If you are so aware, how do you respond to those arguments?
4) If a law is passed, and is not done so according to the Constitution, is it "Constitutional" just by stare decisis?
5) If you answer "yes" to 4) above, then what is the point in a Constitution in the first place?

I would be interested in your answers to all the above, if they involve more than simply accusing me of "tin hat crazy conspiracy nonsense" your buddy threw at me about the Federal Reserve. (I only mention that because of you applauding in the bleachers, not because you chimed in).

At one time, blacks were expressly declared "non persons" by the USSC. This was the clear, unequivocal ruling of the USSC. Granting these "pieces of property" express rights listed to "persons" under the Constitution would have been an overt violation of existing Federal and State laws. A man who believed that the ruling (which WAS followed expressly, legally, and within the bounds of constitutional order) was wrong and should not be obeyed would be guilty of overt lawbreaking. Many people involved in the "underground railroad" did exactly that. Were those people actually guilty, or were the "guilty" only of violating a tyrannical dictate which did not have the force of law, no matter how correctly framed and passed?
 
Mr Chess Pigeon said:
What if I said "no, I don't?"
1) Do you believe the 16th amendment was in fact passed correctly (according to the Constitution)?
2) If so, are you aware of the arguments/claims that it was NOT in fact passed according to the dictates in the Constitution?
3) If you are so aware, how do you respond to those arguments?
4) If a law is passed, and is not done so according to the Constitution, is it "Constitutional" just by stare decisis?
5) If you answer "yes" to 4) above, then what is the point in a Constitution in the first place?

I would be interested in your answers to all the above, if they involve more than simply accusing me of "tin hat crazy conspiracy nonsense" your buddy threw at me about the Federal Reserve. (I only mention that because of you applauding in the bleachers, not because you chimed in).

At one time, blacks were expressly declared "non persons" by the USSC. This was the clear, unequivocal ruling of the USSC. Granting these "pieces of property" express rights listed to "persons" under the Constitution would have been an overt violation of existing Federal and State laws. A man who believed that the ruling (which WAS followed expressly, legally, and within the bounds of constitutional order) was wrong and should not be obeyed would be guilty of overt lawbreaking. Many people involved in the "underground railroad" did exactly that. Were those people actually guilty, or were the "guilty" only of violating a tyrannical dictate which did not have the force of law, no matter how correctly framed and passed?
Click to expand...



I dont know who 'my buddy' is referring to
 
Oh, and Im not playing your game.
You are what your name suggests and so much more.
Play your game and crap on the board against someone else.

k thx bye
 
B00ger said:
Considering they only received an annual salary starting in 1855 it is pretty easy to see that representatives were not meant to be “full time career politicians” making only a per diem stipend while in session.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Supreme court justices and federal judges have always had lifetime appointments. Presidents and most representatives have traditionally been wealthy people who didn't need salaries. Term limits weren't put on the president until Roosevelt...so there was nothing limiting the length of time anyone could occupy these positions (beyond their means or the will of the voters) or find a way to make a career of it until fairly recently. We all know that Pelosi didn't make her millions from her salary while in office. They may have only had to meet in Washington once per year at one time but it would be naive to think they weren't spending a good portion of the rest of the year campaigning and meeting with constituents (hint: making money).

To clarify, if they meant for congress in particular to have limited activity in any form, and even if they wrote long letters/diatribes to each other stating that opinion, they didn't put any effective limits into the constitution...so we get what we have here today.
 
Last edited:
Mr Chess Pigeon said:
What if I said "no, I don't?"
1) Do you believe the 16th amendment was in fact passed correctly (according to the Constitution)?
.....
Click to expand...

If you don't like the ratification process for the 16th Amendment, how do you feel about the 14h Amendment and its "incorporation" offshoots?

States that voted against the 14th Amendment were placed under military government until their unrecognized state legislatures approved the 14th Amendment, after which their legislatures were recognized by the federal government. Yeah, actions taken under duress are null and void.
 
ChickenHawk said:
As a relatively young guy on this board it always bothers me when the older generations talk about how the young generations are screwed while most took no action to try and stop the slide when they could.
Click to expand...

We tried to use the "system" as best we could. Short of shooting the F'ers. Now I am on another freaking list..... You may still be screwed as the debt will trump everything else. Unless they mint those two magical coins the eliminate it. Chin up though....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom