Jorge Arbusto's fault... He's the one who downsized & outsourced our industrial infrastructury that is now produced more "efficiently" in Third World shitholes...
Trump is 20 years too late, we should've elected Ross Perot when we had the chance...
But I don't give a shit anymore.... I'm probably gonna croak sometime within the next 3~4 years anyway...
Fuck all them idiots that did this... They fuckin' ruined this whole goddam planet for everybody...
Too many goddam people, too much goddam garbage & trash... plastics, pesticides, fertilizer runnoff, flushed pharmaceuticals... Gonna all disrupt the global foodchain, drug-resistant diseases running rampant worldwide....
There's no avoiding it... I just hope I croak from old age before it hits
I see no reason to focus on Paul Singer, even though he may be the worst of his ilk...
But that's how they did it during Arbusto's reign.... Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different...
Fuck 'em all... And Fuck Tump too.... he can't bring any of that stuff back no matter what he does... He's just a fucking conartist & grifter who's taking advantage of poor gullible fools who think there's still hope.....
Ok, that explains a little. Thanks. I'm doing what I can for my progeny. Not sure what or if. I have this feeling for my country, but I'm not sure if it is any different than family, in both cases there's some dumbasses that I'd like to choke.
Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different.
Yep, same moral arrogance.
I'm not sure about Trump. We'll see. My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist. The next 6 months will reveal a lot.
And yeah, there's no bringing the past back in terms or economic functions, but there may be a decent uprising (again) of the common man. Tulsi Gabbard is the only person on stage that I see with a glimmer of understanding.
Tulsi is a mass murderer. She supports killing American children. She wants to end oil production. She doesn't want us to fight back against terrorists. She is a piece of shit.
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
Yep, she's a politician running for office on the Democrat slate from an overwhelmingly Democrat part of the country.
Like it or not, abortion is the Establishment's policy and it was put in place by Republicans. It will be there until the population declines precipitously. Most young women support it because they don't want as many children as modern medicine allows to survive.
Although I understand the concerns of the pro-abort crowd, I continue to oppose abortion on a moral basis, as it is a crude and vicious form of birth control that corrodes the emotional well being of the people.
When I watch her I see a good hearted woman who is also intelligent and seeks the truth of matters. She may not always be right (re: agree with me), but she is not deliberately corrupt. That alone is worth support.
Finally, her adoption of the mono-theistic (and Christian-like) branch of the Hindu religion is far more acceptable than the anti-Christian Jewish swamp we live with now.
I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did. Catholics hold the majority in the Supreme Court they can end it today. But you dumb Catholics are like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. Lukewarm is what you are. An excuse maker for satan's democrats.
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Opinion of the Court 7-2; 5D, 2R
Blackmun (R) delivered the Opinion of the court joined by 6 more. Burger (R) Marshall (D) Powell (D) Douglas (D) filed a concurring opinion. Brennan (D) filed a concurring opinion. Stewart (R) filed a concurring opinion.
Dissenting justices: 1D, 1R
White (D) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist joined. Rehnquist (R) filed a dissenting opinion.
The Court contained 6 nominees by Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.
It contained 3 nominees by Democrat presidents FDR, JFK, and LBJ.
Justice Powell was a Democrat nominated by Republican Nixon.
Justice Brennan was a Democrat nominated by Republican Eisenhower.
The Court contained 5 Democrat justices and 4 Republican justices.
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by Republican nominees since Nixon, please tell us the date after which the Republican nominees were nominally Republican. I believe that occurred under Reagan.
O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - these are Republican nominees who are nominally Republican. And they've provided the bulwark to prevent the Republican majority Court from overturning Roe.
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
No, I advocated for no such conclusion. I only reposted my years old recitation of the party of the justices and the presidents who nominated them.
I find the entire argument absurd. Lo these many years, I have never found the abortion clause of the Constitution. I do not find it to be a constitutional matter at all.
Whether a judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, he or she should decide based on United States law, not some personal perception of God's law. Finding something morally repugnant or acceptable does nothing to determine it to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.
The first law citing murder was in 1790 and only applied to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Murder elsewhere was not a Federal matter. Even if abortion were considered infanticide, it would not have been a crime against the United States.
SEC. 3. And be it [further] enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.
The argument over Roe proceeds from the false choice of Roe, or a reversal of Roe prohibiting all abortion. I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction. Roe should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, and the matter returned to the States.
Whether a judge is Dem or GOP should not determine how he rules. Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.
At the time of Roe, it was entirely possible for a conservative Southern Democrat to be much more conservative than what was then a moderate Northeastern moderate Republican. A party indicator from nearly 50 years ago provides no indicator of that justice's legal leanings. Even a current party indicator does not identify how one would interpret the Constitution.
The party indicator of the nominating official provides less than nothing.
Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?
Where should the power lie?
Should the Supreme Court have the power to make it legal to murder adults or anyone's babies?
Should the Supreme Court have such power in the absence of any decision by the Federal political branch (the Legislature) in the form of a law? There was no Federal law at issue in Roe. No Federal law prevented a State from banning abortion. Roe relied on constitutional interpretation to strike down a Texas State law. In doing so, it made that interpretation applicable to all the States, striking down all conflicting State law.
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
But you didn't answer the question.
You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
But you didn't answer the question.
You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
Why ok for babies but not adults?
Yours is an inapplicable question and I will walk you through why that is so.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
ALL power resides in either:
The United States, or
The States, or
The people
Unless you strike down the Constitution, those are your three choices for who has the power to decide whether abortion is constitutional or unconstitutional, lawful or unlawful.
Either the Federal government or the States must be empowered to decide whether to prohibit abortion, or it is left to the people to decide. You must pick one, and only one.
If you choose the Federal government, then you choose to
permit the Congress to pass a law making abortion a crime, or prohibiting States from making abortion a crime, or
permit the Supreme Court to preempt Congress and all States by issuing an opinion based on an interpretation of the Constitution
do nothing, leaving it to the States
If you choose the States, then you choose to
empower the State government to pass a law making abortion a crime
do nothing, leaving it to the people
If you choose the People, then you choose to
render all abortion legal until the People exercise their sovereign power to amend the Constitution to state, for example, "Abortion is a felony punishable by death."
Nothing is murder, or any crime at all, until there is a law stating that it is murder or a crime. It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.
Whoever is empowered is empowered to decide abortion is a crime by passing a law so stating. Should they not pass such a law, then abortion is not a crime within that jurisdiction. Whoever is empowered is empowered to pass a law making interference with lawful abortion a crime, or to regulate abortion in the manner of its choosing.
As you seem to support Federal jurisdiction, where the power now resides, States cannot decide whether to make abortion a crime.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
Why ok for babies but not adults?
The inapplicability of your question is shown by the fact that States have no power to declare abortion lawful or unlawful. The Federal government has declared that it is empowered to decide the matter and it has decided it by declaring to all 50 States that abortion is not unlawful, much less murder, and that it is a constitutional right.
Everything is legal unless there is a law stating it is illegal. Whoever is empowered makes something legal by doing nothing. They make something lawful by not passing a law making it unlawful.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
As a matter of law, you are simply wrong about Marbury. However, assume arguendo that you are correct.
You appear perfectly happy to support an activist Supreme Court deciding the legality of abortion, just as long as the majority agrees with you in exercising jurisdiction you alternately appear to deny exists.
Marbury actually resolved whether the Federal courts could strike down a Federal law as repugnant to the Constitution. In Roe, there was no Federal law involved. Had there been an inconsistent Federal law, the Federal law would have prevailed pursuant to Article 6.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I
It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I
You are welcome to live in your alternate reality. It is indisputable truth that people interfering with others entering or leaving abortion clinics are charged with a crime, while people receiving or performing abortions are not.
The only way to overturn Roe is by constitutional amendment or by another action of the Supreme Court itself. A blog entry declaring Roe null and void does not get it.
You appear to actively support the Court usurping power to impose their opinion upon the fifty states and the federal legislature. Your only disagreement is with the opinion they issued.
Just imagine the Framers' surprise when they learn that they created a constitutional right to gay marriage.
If you lived in Nazi Germany in stead of abortion murder America. You would be saying the Jew are being gassed and the Germans are gassing and not being arrested.
Abortion is murder in this world. The intentional taking of a human life is murder no matter what some douchebag you worship in a black robe says.
It is av violation of the 9th amendment. The right to life once conceived. It is a human being that is being murdered. A human being not a fuckiing zygote. That is idiot liberal talk.
Don't you respect the 9th amendment. I don't think you do. Just like the second amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms. We already had that right. Can you give us some of the rights the 9th gives us. I don't think you can.
Also the Declaration of Independence is superior the constitution. It suts higher in the pecking order. Also no good people give a shit what the Supreme Court says when they get it wrong. If you want to know when they get it wrong ask me and I will tell you.
The constitution means what it says not what the majority votes on a given day.
You can disagree but you would be wrong.
What you promote is color of law. I don't have tine to explain what color of law is go look it up.
The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion. Most of the framers would kill, the abortionists with muskets or hanging.
If you lived in Nazi Germany in stead of abortion murder America. You would be saying the Jew are being gassed and the Germans are gassing and not being arrested.
If I were living in Nazi Germany and you asked me what the law was, I would try to respond with an accurate recitation of Nazi German law. I would not make believe that Nazi German law was an A K A Stone brainfart.
Abortion is murder in this world. The intentional taking of a human life is murder no matter what some douchebag you worship in a black robe says.
Abortion is not murder if the law says it is legal. Murder defines a criminal act punishable under the law. Try charging someone with criminal abortion.
It is av violation of the 9th amendment. The right to life once conceived.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It does not say a mumbling word about abortion or the right to life of a fetus.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger....
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Capital case or crime. One in which death penalty may, but need not necessariy, be imposed.
Yea verily, under the Constitution, living people have been gassed, shot, hanged, and electrocuted until dead. And then there is lethal injection.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence which has never been the law of anyplace. Murder is punished as murder under a murder statute, not the Constitution.
A human being not a fuckiing zygote. That is idiot liberal talk.
Zygotes were brought up at #62 by Anthem, to whom I responded. Take it up with Anthem. I never claimed a zygote is a human being. A zygote is a fertilized egg.
Don't you respect the 9th amendment. I don't think you do.
It appears you either have not read it, or you find therein some imaginary provision that criminalizes abortion. But then, the District Court in Roe found therein the right to abortion, and the Supreme Court opined that, "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Then there is Section 1 of 14th Amendment where SCOTUS finds the imaginary right to abortion,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
An abortion clinic is not a State.
Remember, you are the one supporting the power of SCOTUS to strike down all the state laws that prohibited abortion. My personal finding is that abortion is not addressed by the Constitution, Roe took up an argument based on a non-existent provision of the Constitution, and the case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You, on the other hand, ignore the constitutional and jurisdiction issue and find the court should decide the lawfulness of abortion on constitutional grounds.
Note that at the time of Roe, there was no Federal law banning abortion to overturn. Note also that the final arbiter in interpreting a State law is the highest court of the State, not the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that abortion was a right under some vaguely identified provision emanating from a penumbra.
Just like the second amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms. We already had that right. Can you give us some of the rights the 9th gives us. I don't think you can.
Neither the 9th Amendment, nor the 2nd Amendment, created or gave any new right. Neither purports to do so. The right to keep and bear arms was cut and pasted from English common law, which was the law in the colonies before independence.
Also the Declaration of Independence is superior the constitution. It suts higher in the pecking order.
The DoI sits in equal status with a blog entry as far as being law. It is not law. In fact, it was crafted before there was a United States.
Also no good people give a shit what the Supreme Court says when they get it wrong. If you want to know when they get it wrong ask me and I will tell you.
When SCOTUS gets it wrong according to you or me, their interpretation of the law is still the law of the land.
Tell yourself whatever you want. Since SCOTUS said abortion is a constitutional right, abortion has been legal. Since they said gay marriage is a constitutional right, gay marriage is legal. Recognizing that something is legal is not the same as agreeing with it. Believing something is murder does not make it murder. An act may be murder in Texas and less than murder elsewhere. It simply depends on what the applicable statute says.
The constitution means what it says not what the majority votes on a given day.
SCOTUS is the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution and what it says is the governing interpretation. Abortions and gay marriage are legal.
You can disagree but you would be wrong.
You can disagree with SCOTUS and it does not change the law. They are empowered as the final arbiter in interpreting Federal law, including the Constitution, and you and I are not. Our opinions are not binding on the courts, Their's are.
What you promote is color of law. I don't have tine to explain what color of law is go look it up.
I will take the time to clear up your evident confusion about color of law and Federal constitutional law.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clother with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law.” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.
When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).
Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.
Acts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.
"Color of law" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion.
And yet, it is the law. Abortion and gay marriage are legal. Pete Buttigieg, a candidate for president, has a husband. We even have laws against using the wrong pronouns. And guys who identify as girls are transformed into record breaking "lady" track stars and "lady" weight lifters.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Obergefell at 4:
(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way.
I didn't write it, but it is now the law. You can make believe otherwise.
If you do not know what it means, stop trying to use it.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clother with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law.” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.
When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).
Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.
Acts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.
"Color of law" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
cts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”,
You can beat me and shut me up. If you could only prove that the Supreme court is the final arbitrator using the Constitution. You can't do that though. You just ignore that point. You can't do it because those words aren't in there. They aren't Chan and you know it.
If you could only prove that the Supreme court is the final arbitrator using the Constitution. You can't do that though. You just ignore that point. You can't do it because those words aren't in there. They aren't Chan and you know it.
U.S. Constitution, Article III.
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—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.
[...]
Who do you think is the final arbiter when interpreting the Constitution? Liberty's Flame? Free Republic? Democratic Underground? dKos?
Cite the authority which empowers anyone but the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS is the only court created by the Constitution.
[nc #91] Appeal Roe and Obergefell to the imaginary court of natural law.
[Judas Goat #91] The CDC provides a plethora of documentation establishing how UN-imaginary the court of Natural Law is.
By all means, take your case to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and argue God's law in the imaginary CDC Ecclesiastical Court. Good luck and may ooga booga be with you.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Natural law. This expression, "natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered "according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a "state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. In ethics, it consists in practical universal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.
Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165.
A. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
1. NATURAL RIGHTS
Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts. If the federal government exercises one of its delegated powers or the states exercise their reserved powers, some express or implied constitutional, statutory, or common law limitation must be found if the government action is to be successfully challenged.
Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts.
That is because the courts have gone rouge.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your post shows that originally they knew the truth before asshole liars came to power. Deceivers. Fakers. Murderers.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your post shows that originally they knew the truth before asshole liars came to power.
Ah, yes. They knew the troof before asshole liars came to power, and they inserted a clause, (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people) ensuring that Natural Law, God's Law, philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, was retained by the people.
Not to be mistaken, slaves were considered persons. Before the assholes and liars took over, the Framers found a unique way to refer to slaves while bestowing to representation in Congress based on an enumeration of persons (census) and "adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." Slaves were that "three fifths of all other persons."
And before the asshole liars came to power, the Framers enshrined slaves with the rights of livestock and other property. All men were created equal, but only white people were accorded the right to naturalization. All men and women were equal, but only white, male landowners could vote. In adopting the Law of God into the American legal system, so said the Founders and Framers before the assholes took over.
About seventy-five years later, President Abe Lincoln went on a three-day drunk and passed out in his bed, his bed perhaps being the bed at the Soldier's Home cottage where President Lincoln frequently went to stay, to be joined in his bed by Captain David Derickson, but I digress. A cabinet member awakened Abe from his slumber and gave him the news. Lincoln jumped from his bed startled, and exclaimed, "I freed the who?"
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, like every other clause therein, means what the Supreme Court says it means. Currently, the meaning is so broad that I can't off the top of my head think of any commerce not being regulable. Perhaps there is some limiting case law. When I last looked at the issue, long ago in law school, a farmer growing crops on his own farm to feed his own livestock was sufficiently engaged in "interstate commerce" (because of the potential effect of such activity thereupon), that his activity was regulable. I can't think of any economic activity that wouldn't be federally regulable under that broad standard. Perhaps a kid's lemonade stand on a cul- de-sac far away from an interstate highway? (But state and local authorities could take interest.)
