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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: An Open Request for Answers - Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Apr 19, 2020 Author: Gatlin Post Date: 2020-04-19 16:35:45 by Gatlin Keywords: None Views: 2620 Comments: 26 Quote Will anyone, or everyone, please be so kind as to answer 4 questions. A “yes” or “no” is sufficeint. You may however add appropriae coments. Question #1: is the document at this link the exact wording of the US Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788? Question #2: Is the following the exact wording of Article VI of the US Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788? Article VI (Article 6 - Prior Debts, National Supremacy, Oaths of Office): 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 2: 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Question #3: Does Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788 state that only: This Constitution […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land? Or, doesArticle VI Section 2 of the US Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788 state: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land? Question #4: Can it be correctly stated that the “Constitution” is not sole Law of the Land, but that the Constitution and [emphasis on the word “and”] the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land … Thank you. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20. #4. To: Gatlin (#0) Yes to questions 1,2, and 4. As to question 3, Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution as ratified on June 21, 1788 state: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Why do you ask? misterwhite  posted on  2020-04-19   18:45:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#4) Why do you ask? I was in a discussion with Stone on this. He instead that only the Constitution is the Law of the Land. I factually documented a lengthy post showing him that indeed the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land. He blew his tope like I have never seen him do before and he immediately deleted the posts and said I was only offering an opinion and then that I was stating an amendment. I tried to explain to him that I said exactly what the Article VI Section 2 had stated it verbatim. He would have no part of that. So I posted a new thread to show I was right and he immediately deleted that – still in a temper tantrum. So, I have again posted a thread saying the same thing as I did in the one he deleted. I know that he respects your opinions, so I wanted him to see what you had to say. I hope that he will now understand what I originally stated to him was correct information. Do I have this right, Stone? And do you now understand that the Constitution is not the “stand alone” Law of the Land. It is as the Constitution says: the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Thank you for your assistance, misterwhite. I was not putting you in the middle of this, I just needed a third party fo show Stone the facts. When I am wrong, I will quickly admit it and apologize if necessary. But when I am right, I will be persistent in showing where I am right. I have done that. It is now up to Stone if he wishes to remain in denial. Gatlin  posted on  2020-04-19   19:09:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Gatlin (#5) People look at what they consider to be "unconstitutional" federal laws (asset forfeiture, marijuana, eminent domain, etc.) and conclude those laws shouldn't be included. Their reasoning is that the validity of those laws are decided by the constitution, and their interpretation of the constitution does not allow those laws. misterwhite  posted on  2020-04-20   10:11:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: misterwhite (#19) People look at what they consider to be "unconstitutional" federal laws (asset forfeiture, marijuana, eminent domain, etc.) and conclude those laws shouldn't be included. Their reasoning is that the validity of those laws are decided by the constitution, and their interpretation of the constitution does not allow those laws. You are correct some people make up stuff they think is unconstitutional. But when the words of the constitution are OBVIOUSLY being ignored and some judge rubber stamps it. Are we supposed to pretend that "congress shall make no law..." Means that congress really can make that law? I realize the judicial decisions have the effect of law. But lets be honest in the example I'm giving in this paragraph relating to closing down churches. No honest person can argue that it doesn't violate the very clear and unambiguous words of the constitution relating to freedom of assembly in the form of "NO LAWS". A K A Stone  posted on  2020-04-20   10:22:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 20. #23. To: A K A Stone (#20) But when the words of the constitution are OBVIOUSLY being ignored and some judge rubber stamps it. Then that ruling can be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But someone has to decide. If not the court, then who decides on the constitutionality of a law? The people? As Ann Coulter opined, are the people expected to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367? Since Congress represents the people, they have already spoken when the law was written. We know how the people feel (or at least the majority of them). misterwhite  posted on  2020-04-20 11:44:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#20) People look at what they consider to be "unconstitutional" federal laws (asset forfeiture, marijuana, eminent domain, etc.) and conclude those laws shouldn't be included. Their reasoning is that the validity of those laws are decided by the constitution, and their interpretation of the constitution does not allow those laws. You are correct some people make up stuff they think is unconstitutional. Hallelujah – Lord, Stone has finally seen the light. Let me go cue that song .. Gatlin  posted on  2020-04-20 12:40:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 20. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/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