Covid-19

[Xville]

That’s an honest question you obviously lacked the intellectual curiosity to ask yourself. Not surprised. You’re the smartest guy in any crowd so why ask questions.

Well, you’re the one who thinks the Supreme Court doesn’t interpret the constitution so you know better than me.

[STL_XUfan]

The SCOTUS interprets laws not the Constitution. No law has been passed. Nothing to interpret and no reason to adhere to

That may be the dumbest thing to be written in this thread, and that is saying something.

[Strange Brew]

Holy shit. They don’t interpret the constitution? Read a book, seriously

Haha, do yourself a favor and read the actual Constitution and return your HS degree.

They don’t rule if Amendments are Constitional they determine if laws are in violation of it. Try again.

[Strange Brew]

That may be the dumbest thing to be written in this thread, and that is saying something.

Haha, so the SCOTUS has the authority to deem the Constitution is unconstitutional.

[Xville]

Haha, do yourself a favor and read the actual Constitution and return your HS degree.

They don’t rule if Amendments are Constitional they determine if laws are in violation of it. Try again.

Just stop you sound like an idiot. Do they or do they not interpret the constitution? You said they don’t. That’s the dumbest thing I have seen in this thread.

Just say you were wrong and maybe you won’t look so brazenly ignorant.

[Strange Brew]

Just stop you sound like an idiot. Do they or do they not interpret the constitution? You said they don’t. That’s the dumbest thing I have seen in this thread.

Just say you were wrong and maybe you won’t look so brazenly ignorant.

They don’t. Sorry you believe that. They do not have the power to interpret Amendments. What do they rule on? Whether laws passed by the Fed/States violate the Constitution. Are they involved at all in the Amendment process? How is the Constitution changed or updated?

It will be helpful when you actually read the document to pay attention to the 10th Amendment. Remember it still is the law for the Amendments that follow. It would help you to understand why things like gun laws vary between the States and why Congress can’t touch that issue and why the SCOTUS takes many of those cases as 2A is the stopgap to go to for overreach by a State gov’t.

Now with the 2nd, it becomes tricky because it doesn’t say “Congress shall pass no law”. It’s left as shall not be infringed so the real question is whether the States can restrict gun rights at all. Which is why the argument made to not by the SCOTUS is around the whether the Amendment’s two clauses can be or are separate. And here we are with many State law challenges. If you’ve read the Federalist Papers and the writers of the document, their intention is very clear.

[Xville]

They don’t. Sorry you believe that. They do not have the power to interpret Amendments. What do they rule on? Whether laws passed by the Fed/States violate the Constitution. Are they involved at all in the Amendment process? How is the Constitution changed or updated?

It will be helpful when you actually read the document to pay attention to the 10th Amendment. Remember it still is the law for the Amendments that follow. It would help you to understand why things like gun laws vary between the States and why Congress can’t touch that issue and why the SCOTUS takes many of those cases as 2A is the stopgap to go to for overreach by a State gov’t.

Really going to stick to your guns of saying that the Supreme Court doesn’t interpret the constitution? Once you say that, I’m done. If you can’t admit you’re wrong on that point, then there is nothing worth discussing. You’d rather be ignorant than admit you’re wrong.

[Strange Brew]

Really going to stick to your guns of saying that the Supreme Court doesn’t interpret the constitution? Once you say that, I’m done. If you can’t admit you’re wrong on that point, then there is nothing worth discussing. You’d rather be ignorant than admit you’re wrong.

I won’t because I’m not wrong. AT ALL. Is that to say the SCOTUS hasn’t found a way to rule through the invention of a right or to take rights from the States or The People? No. That’s why their rulings have been overturned and precisely why precedent is a garbage argument.

Remember when you read it, power and Rights come from the Creator and the People. The States created the Federal gov’t with the intent to limit it’s authority.

You don’t Civics at all bro.

[STL_XUfan]

They don’t. Sorry you believe that. They do not have the power to interpret Amendments. What do they rule on? Whether laws passed by the Fed/States violate the Constitution. Are they involved at all in the Amendment process? How is the Constitution changed or updated?

It will be helpful when you actually read the document to pay attention to the 10th Amendment. Remember it still is the law for the Amendments that follow. It would help you to understand why things like gun laws vary between the States and why Congress can’t touch that issue and why the SCOTUS takes many of those cases as 2A is the stopgap to go to for overreach by a State gov’t.

Now with the 2nd, it becomes tricky because it doesn’t say “Congress shall pass no law”. It’s left as shall not be infringed so the real question is whether the States can restrict gun rights at all. Which is why the argument made to not by the SCOTUS is around the whether the Amendment’s two clauses can be or are separate. And here we are with many State law challenges. If you’ve read the Federalist Papers and the writers of the document, their intention is very clear.

Your covid “research” makes so much more sense now.

[Strange Brew]

Your covid “research” makes so much more sense now.

Good one. Funny thing is I really haven’t posted much research here. I’m vaxxed and I was right about the COVID vax not being a traditional vaccine. Don’t believe me, the CDC changed their definition as mRNA treatment does not qualify under their old definition (the traditional one).

Your and others lack of basic knowledge of how things actually work makes much more sense now.

Oh, and Ville. As to your read a book comment, I reread The Law by Bastiat over the weekend and currently I’m rereading the Civil Disobedience. Any other literary suggestions you’d like to offer?