"There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights."
For civilians, meanwhile, we’re one Supreme Court justice away from getting some sanity and balance to interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the only thing I can’t decide is whether it would be more delicious for Barack Obama to appoint that judge or for Hillary Clinton to do it.
Never heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences, heh? See you at the war crimes trials, moron.
8 comments:
Apparently what this f**ktard doesn't realize (along with his consultants and handlers) is that the Bill of Rights (not Laws or even Suggestions) is/are merely the written codification of what was once called God's Laws (or for the atheist or agnostic) or Natural Laws. These newly written rules of man, and by extension, society, were novel ideas at the time the FFs wrote them into the Constitution. (I won't go into prior English laws and Blackstone's Commentaries).
What this f**ktard also seems to forget (as has the FeGub itself forgotten) is that these Bill of Rights were originally implemented, along with the Constitution, as a limit and a muzzle on the Federal Gubbment's actions against the citizens and the states.
Well, it seems the FedGub has slipped the leash and muzzle, and is attacking the sovereign citizen like a rabid dog. And this Michael Tomasky is encouraging the beast to continue its attacks.
I wonder how well MT will like it when the beast, once its appetite is temporarily sated on the corpses of the free citizen, turns its gaze upon HIS well fed carcass? Will he start screaming about abuse of HIS rights (I'm thinking in his case, since he's a so-called writer, of the First, Fourth and Fifth). And where, oh where, somebody SAVE ME, are the people who are no longer around to protect him from Teh Big Bad FedGub?
B Woodman
III-per
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/05/dan-rather-obamas-opponents-want-to-cut-his-heart-out-throw-his-liver-to-the-dogs/
I have a theory, and maybe Mike V can confirm this one for Sipsey's gentle readers: Dan Rather is a dumbass.
After reading the article, I'm left with the opinion that the constitution is under attack ad I'm greatly concerned with the limitations placed on many of my rights. A person could get all up in arms over such provocations.
I fail to understand the interest people have in any ruling on the constitutionality of anything not created by congress since that is what they are limited to ruling on.. Where in the constitution are they granted the authority to interpret the laws that specifically restrict their authority ?
They have no constitutional power to interpret anything but laws under the constitution not the constitution or any part of it.
The SCOTUS is already corrupted because Americans have allowed them to overstep their lawful authority already.. it makes no matter.
Yank lll
A little poem for the IIIAmerican Birthright.
Thanks Mike and to those who won't roll over.
The States refused to accept the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included. That makes the Bill of Rights a part of the agreement that formed the United States.
Therefore if the Bill of Rights is removed, the agreement of the States to form a Republican Form of Government is nullified.
If they remove our God Given Inalienable Rights, that removes the document which endorses the United States Government.
It also removes their protect provided by the Constitution.
Yup, put that moron on the list.
My right is not absolute. It stops when I misuse it to harm others without justification.
Taking my right against my will is justification and they'd better damned well recognize that.
Why do we continue to have conversations with these people?
Post a Comment