[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles

Title: Question of the Day. If Congress.....
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 24, 2011
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2011-11-24 21:31:24 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 7193
Comments: 36

If congress is forbidden to make a law. Can they go ahead and make that law anyways?

Very simple question. My 11 year old could get the answer right. Can liberals?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Of course they can. They do it all the time. I don't like it, but what can I do about it?

Abcdefg  posted on  2011-11-24   21:55:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Abcdefg (#1)

Of course they can. They do it all the time. I don't like it, but what can I do about it?

I don't know what we can do about it. Complain on some obscure website maybe? :)

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-24   22:04:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Abcdefg (#1)

So is the constitution basically meaningless?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-24   22:05:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)

Not to me it isn't. It is to the Congress of criminals.

Abcdefg  posted on  2011-11-24   22:24:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)

The question isn't what "no law" means. The question is what constitutes speech.

I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...

war  posted on  2011-11-25   9:31:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: war (#5)

Let me help you out.

speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation.

You're welcome. But next time to to the local elementary school and ask one of the fourth graders.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   10:27:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: war (#5)

Your answer reminds me of this guy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   10:33:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)

When did Exxon ever converse with Shell?

I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...

war  posted on  2011-11-25   10:45:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: war A K A Stone (#8)

When did Exxon ever converse with Shell?

Stone would have been a Tory during the Revolution, since it was the only position that supported the Monarchy/East India Co, corporatism is free speech, alliance that existed then.

The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy TeaBaggers want it back.

"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.

mininggold  posted on  2011-11-25   10:53:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: war (#8)

When did Exxon ever converse with Shell?

?????

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   11:02:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: mininggold, war (#9)

The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy

Liar Liar your pants are on fire!

I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   11:10:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: A K A Stone (#2)

I don't know what we can do about it. Complain on some obscure website maybe? :)

You can collect money and lobby congress.

Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890

lucysmom  posted on  2011-11-25   11:29:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#10)

?????

Clueless as usual. Look up Citizens United...

Fred Mertz  posted on  2011-11-25   11:32:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Fred Mertz (#13)

Fred show me a talking building. Who are you to tell some successful person that they can't take. Why do you hate freedom so much?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   11:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)

Fred show me a talking building.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2011-11-25   11:40:05 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)

Liar Liar your pants are on fire!

I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.

Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.

"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.

mininggold  posted on  2011-11-25   11:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone (#11)

But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.

Speaking of definitions

speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation. hmmm, where did that come from

Does a corporation have a brain, and thus thoughts or feelings to express? What physical structure does a corporation use to produce an utterance?

If I wish to ask Bank of America how it is feeling today, how would I do that?

Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890

lucysmom  posted on  2011-11-25   11:41:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: mininggold (#16)

Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.

The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking.

I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   11:44:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: lucysmom (#17)

Does a corporation have a brain, and thus thoughts or feelings to express?

So you don't have to worry about a building speaking. Only people can speak and they can say whatever the F they want to. Your position is that of Chinese communists.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   11:45:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: lucysmom (#17)

Speaking of definitions

speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation. hmmm, where did that come from

Does a corporation have a brain, and thus thoughts or feelings to express? What physical structure does a corporation use to produce an utterance?

If I wish to ask Bank of America how it is feeling today, how would I do that?

I guess in his in his delusional mind, pieces of paper issued by a state are capable of independent thought and verbal skills. I wonder if my car registration has the same abilities.

"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.

mininggold  posted on  2011-11-25   11:45:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: lucysmom (#17)

What physical structure does a corporation use to produce an utterance?

When a building talks get back to me.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-25   11:46:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)

When a building talks get back to me.

You already believe that a piece of paper can talk so why not a building especially if it's owned by that piece of paper?

"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.

mininggold  posted on  2011-11-25   11:50:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)

When a building talks get back to me.

So then a corporation is a building.

Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890

lucysmom  posted on  2011-11-25   11:56:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#19)

Only people can speak and they can say whatever the F they want to. Your position is that of Chinese communists.

Where have I advocated robbing people of free speech?

Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890

lucysmom  posted on  2011-11-25   12:18:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.

The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking.

I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century?

Certainly you would have that info handy as a basis for your argument since you so virulently support their decision and classify it as a returning to a historically conservative, constitutional concept, created and practiced by our founders.

"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.

mininggold  posted on  2011-11-25   12:49:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#0)

If congress is forbidden to make a law. Can they go ahead and make that law anyways?

a.) They can make whatever law they want

b.) The law can be challenges in the courts and if the challenge is successful, it can be overturned


A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure

jwpegler  posted on  2011-11-25   18:03:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#18)

The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed.

The use of the word "persons" in the 14th Amendment (1868) opened the way for corporate personhood and a court reporter ran with it.

Wikipedia:

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[3]

The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[4]

In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[5] However, this issue was not decided by the Court.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.[6]

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.[6]

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."[7]

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[8]

So before 1868 corporations were not persons and were not entitled to free speech.

Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890

lucysmom  posted on  2011-11-26   11:21:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: A K A Stone (#11)

So you agree with NAMBLA's position that it should be able to publish child pornography...

I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...

war  posted on  2011-11-28   11:24:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: war (#28)

So you agree with NAMBLA's position that it should be able to publish child pornography...

No. It isn't speech either.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-28   11:27:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)

It's Press.

Do you even KNOW what's in the first amendment?

I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...

war  posted on  2011-11-28   11:40:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: war (#30)

It's Press.

Do you even KNOW what's in the first amendment?

We will just have to disagree on this one. You can support NAMBLA and say they have first amendment rights to publish child porn. I disagree.

The constitution specifically mentioned speech. I would agree that freedom to publish pictures that go along with stories would be covered. Just not in this case. It isn't speech.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-28   11:55:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: war (#30)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-28   11:56:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: war (#30)

Man can never make a perfect document to govern us.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-28   12:06:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#31)

The constitution specifically [mentions] speech.

It also specifically mentions "Press". "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

How about if I form a religion that worships the killing of the God(s) of other religions?

I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...

war  posted on  2011-11-28   12:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: war (#34)

An argument could be made as to what you suggest.

Is this in fact an admission by you that sometimes you or others substitute their own sense of right and wrong and call that constitutional?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-11-28   13:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: A K A Stone (#35) (Edited)

An argument could be made as to what you suggest.

A) You've already made the argument..."what does "no law" mean?

B) I'm not "suggesting" anything. Your logic MANDATES that any material is free to be published and the Congress is powerless to stop it. It means that I can start a religion that worships those who laugh at the "false Gods" like the ones in the Hebrew/Christian bible.

NO LAW MEANS NO LAW.

I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...

war  posted on  2011-11-28   13:18:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com