Have another cocktail.

How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed.

Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed?

Actually, my #65 makes no mention of or allusion to Nunn. Nunn was the case you repeatedly have claimed destroyed my position, oblivious to the fact that it was contrary to an existing U.S. Supreme Court opinion when made in a Georgia court, and was subsequently overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court about 140 years ago. Nonsense like your claim only destroys your credibility.

The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones.

Some of the BoR applies, and some does not, depending on whether it has been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. None of the BoR applied to the states before incorporation following the 14th Amendment.

Productions v. Fogerty, 3:14-cv-00633-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Aug 26, 2015) [John Fogerty, Creedence Clearwater Revival]

Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

My #65 responded to your bullshit claim at #64 that:

There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller.

As I made clear at #65, Heller was about keeping arms in the home, in the Federal district of Washington, D.C., once again demonstrating the nature of your bullshit.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 575-76 (2007):

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense, reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1035 (2007).

Heller was about the right to keep and bear arms in one's home in the Federal District of Washington, D.C.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2007):

III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26]

[26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Heller commented that "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

If the tpaine interpretation were correct, all visitors to the White House would have the right to enter with a Sig MCX. He denies any right of the government to restrict the supposed right to keep and bear any arms in any place and any time. Such has never been the law of this land, or any other that I know of.

Once it is admitted that the government has the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in one place, it follows that the government can use its authority for other places as it determines, e.g., courts.

And my pet plant has been watered for another day.

Once it is admitted that the government has the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in one place, it follows that the government can use its authority for other places as it determines, e.g., courts.

I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe). -- Your authoritarian view gives them VIRTUALLY unlimited power.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe).

You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? Perhaps a slight flaw in the system is that the Federal government decides whether something done by the Federal government is lawful or not.

There have been state laws restricting the bearing of arms since 1813.

Louisiana 1813

AN ACT

Against carrying concealed weapons, and going armed in public places in an unnecessary manner.

Preamble. Whereas assassination and attempts to commit the same, have of late been of such frequent occurrence as to become a subject of serious alarm to the peaceable and well disposed inhabitants of this state; and whereas the same is in a great measure to be attributed to the dangerous and wicked practice of carrying about in public places concealed and deadly weapons, or going to the same armed in an unnecessary manner, therefore; ....

You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth.

And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

Perhaps a slight flaw in the system is that the Federal government decides whether something done by the Federal government is lawful or not.

SCOTUS justices are pledged to honor the Constitution, not the federal government.

-- And your misconception on this point tells a lot about why you're having mental problems with these issues.

Toooooo bad for your extra crispy kookifornia. Wildfires for da libtards

Toooooo bad for your obsessions about California. -- Here in the northern mountains, no fires and its raining..

Until the fault-line gives away.... and the fruits and nuts are swept into the sea.

Your fruity dreams are showing up again, grandiose.

Get help for those mental aberrations.

The question remains, grandisland: ---'

Could President Trump issue such a finding?

Should he?

The question remains grandisland: ---'

Could President Trump issue such a finding?

Should he?

I believe that state laws should out TRUMP federal laws and no law should infringe upon the spirit of any constitutional Amendment.

Confusing answer, - you agree that there is a right to carry concealed anywhere, -- BUT, -- that there can only be State laws to that effect?

How do you propose to insure that ALL States comply ?

My answer is very simple. Read it slower if you don't understand.

My answer is very simple ---

Minded...

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

[tpaine #74] Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth.

You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws REGULATING the keeping and bearing of arms. Perhaps you are the only cretin in the country who does not think gun regulations restrict the right to keep and bear arms. But if regulate makes you feel better, so be it.

Who decides before a revolution or constitutional amendment whether a REGULATION is "reasonable" or if it "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms? For example, who decides whether a law or regulation prohibiting the carrying of handguns in a school zone is lawful and not infringing?

Who ya gonna call, Ghostbusters?

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958)

It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”

Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution,” as it has been enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court. So sayeth the Court.

And who, to us, do you believe meaningfully decides the lawfulness of a law or regulation within our lifetime, without waiting for a revolution, a constitutional amendment, or the Supreme Court overturning its existing precedent?

[tpaine #66] The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones.

There are declared gun free zones, upheld by the the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, you believe the people (you) can simply ignore existing law and open carry your handgun in a school zone which has been declared a gun free zone. Good luck with that. I can't wait to hear your legal argument leading to your conviction.

[nolu chan #73] Perhaps a slight flaw in the system is that the Federal government decides whether something done by the Federal government is lawful or not.

[tpaine #74] SCOTUS justices are pledged to honor the Constitution, not the federal government.

Then which justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court do you hold in respect and believe the court opinions they wrote or joined should be given respect? Can you name a few, or just one?

Members of Congress and the President also pledge to honor the Constitution. All these pledges produced and upheld Obamacare. So, what is your point in saying they took a pledge?

Do you believe your right to keep and bear arms is protected by their taking a pledge? If so, your right is protected by Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kennedy and Roberts. I'm surprised you have such faith in them and their pledge.

There are now centuries of federal court opinions and it seems you have been unable to produce a single one that supports the crap you spew.

You were reduced to this desperate grope:

[tpaine #66] Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed?

Only to be met with:

Actually, my #65 makes no mention of or allusion to Nunn. Nunn was the case you repeatedly have claimed destroyed my position, oblivious to the fact that it was contrary to an existing U.S. Supreme Court opinion when made in a Georgia court, and was subsequently overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court about 140 years ago. Nonsense like your claim only destroys your credibility.

Please, do continue your madness..

At your request, if that is what it takes to demonstrate you you are unable to make your case, or any case at all, other than your own dementia.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

[tpaine #74] Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth.

You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws REGULATING the keeping and bearing of arms. Perhaps you are the only cretin in the country who does not think gun regulations restrict the right to keep and bear arms. But if regulate makes you feel better, so be it.

Who decides before a revolution or constitutional amendment whether a REGULATION is "reasonable" or if it "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms? For example, who decides whether a law or regulation prohibiting the carrying of handguns in a school zone is lawful and not infringing?

Who ya gonna call, Ghostbusters?

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

So, you have no individual right until the collective people join your insanity and amend the Constitution to satisfy your dementia? Over time, of course.

nolu chan #73] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

[tpaine #74] Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth.

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, - -- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

So, you have no individual right until the collective people join you and amend the Constitution to satisfy you? Over time, of course.

Collective? Your communitarian slip is showing. --- Nope, our right to arms exists, and when it is ignored, INDIVIDUAL Americans will rise up to see that rights are honored.

Despite your efforts.

our right to arms exists, and when it is ignored, INDIVIDUAL Americans will rise up to see that rights are honored.

So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest.

Hmmmm, why are you still free?

Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it?

So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest.

Hmmmm, why are you still free?

Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it?

You're the poor dumb bastard around here.

So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest.

Hmmmm, why are you still free?

Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it?

You're the poor dumb bastard around here.

Well, I am definitely not dumb enough to take your legal advice, and it appears no third party is either, and that leaves just you, and it appears that not even you are actually so dumb, stupid, and ignorant as to act on the demented shit you post.

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery.

You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia.

Kentucky 1813

Chap. LXXXIX

AN ACT to prevent persons in this Commonwealth from wearing cocealed Arms, except in certain cases.

Approved, February 3, 1813

Sec 1. BE it enacted by the general assembly of the commonwealth of Kentucky, That any person in this commonwealth, who shall ereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journay, shall be fined in any sum, not less than one hundred dollars....

Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it?

You're the poor dumb bastard around here.

Well, I am definitely not dumb enough to take your legal advice, ---

I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you.

Over our discussions here, it's my opinion you're probably a frustrated clown who's failed the bar exam numerous times, and are now posting out of your mom's basement, pretending to be a legal expert.

Say it isn't true..

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

[nolu chan #90] I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery.

[nolu chan #90] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia.

[tpaine #91] I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you.

And I have pointed out that now your answer to "who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?" is nobody but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine.

Indeed, if the recourse to an "opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution," this is a tacit admission that the Court is the proper authority to decide the issue. Only, in the demented world of tpaine, the Opinion of the Supreme Court only counts if it is approved by tpaine.

Over our discussions here, it's my opinion you're probably a frustrated clown who's failed the bar exam numerous times, and are now posting out of your mom's basement, pretending to be a legal expert.

Say it isn't true..

In reply, you've made it obvious you can't answer.

Poor nolu, stuck in mommy's basement, pretending to be a legal expert...

[tpaine #91] I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

[nolu chan #90] I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery.

[nolu chan #90] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia.

And I have pointed out that now your answer to "who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?" is nobody but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine.

Indeed, if the recourse to an "opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution," this is a tacit admission that the Court is the proper authority to decide the issue. However, in the demented world of tpaine, the Opinion of the Supreme Court only counts if said opinion is approved by tpaine.

Say it isn't true..

In reply, you've made it obvious you can't answer.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

[tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.

For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.

In tpaine's world, -- the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. ---- If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. --- For example, in tpaine's world, -- President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.

Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance.

This is the way our republic is set up, despite nolu's statist opinions.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

[tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

[nolu chan #96]

In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.

For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.

[tpaine #97]

Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance.

This is the way our republic is set up...

tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office.

Keep digging that hole.

If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.

Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance.

This is the way our republic is set up...

Tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. --- Keep digging that hole.

What hole? -- You're now denying our 'separation of powers' concept?

You must have attended the Moscow University Law School.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

[tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

[nolu chan #96]

In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.

For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.

[tpaine #97]

Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance.

This is the way our republic is set up...

[nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office.

tpaine #99 - psychobabble.

Keep digging that hole.

tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. --- Keep digging that hole.

What hole? -- You're now denying our 'separation of powers' concept?

You must have attended the Moscow University Law School.

psychobabble

Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe.

Congrats .

[tpaine #101] Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe.

Only if you consider the below to be a single word. You have been reduced to a quivering chihuahua, hiding in a corner, sitting in a puddle of your own warm piss.

I understand why a little ankle biter like you chooses to hide rather than confront the substance of your own bullshit.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

[tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

[nolu chan #96]

In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.

For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.

[tpaine #97]

Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance.

This is the way our republic is set up...

[nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office.

tpaine #99 - psychobabble.

Keep digging that hole.

psychobabble

Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe.

Congrats .

Only if you consider the below to be a single word.

Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution.

Do you really imagine anyone reads them?

Dream on...

Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe.

Congrats .

Only if you consider the below to be a single word.

Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution.

Do you really imagine anyone reads them?

Dream on...

Of course they do. For the same reason some people read the comic strips or enjoy cartoons, some will enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself as you are pathetically incapable of defending your legal absurdities.

And beating the shit out of you once a day is fun, like hitting a hit-me doll that keep popping back up to be hit again. It's almost therapeutic, reminding you daily what a shithead your are, and observing your helplessness in (non)response. You are definitely as entertaining as the typical TV sitcom.

As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody.

Your assholery is on display for all to see.

Anyway, to repeat my "one word" reply, which you can only piss yourself about,

[tpaine #101] Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe.

Only if you consider the below to be a single word. You have been reduced to a quivering chihuahua, hiding in a corner, sitting in a puddle of your own warm piss.

I understand why a little ankle biter like you chooses to hide rather than confront the substance of your own bullshit.

[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?

[tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

[tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

[nolu chan #96]

In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.

For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.

[tpaine #97]

Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance.

This is the way our republic is set up...

[nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office.

tpaine #99 - psychobabble.

Keep digging that hole.

Do you really imagine anyone reads them?

Dream on...

Of course they do. For the same reason some people read the comic strips or enjoy cartoons, some will enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself as you are pathetically incapable of defending your legal absurdities.

For over 100 posts, on this thread alone, (and there are a LOT of other threads) we've exchanged opinions about legal absurdities. -- Obviously, I've defended my position, and you yours, --- But apparently , you imagine that repetitively posting our previous opinions proves you are 'the winner'. -- Instead, it proves you are delusional.

As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody.

Your being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

Congrats again. You're finally getting a glimmer of the principles inherent in our Constitution.

[tpaine #105]

For over 100 posts, on this thread alone, (and there are a LOT of other threads) we've exchanged opinions about legal absurdities. -- Obviously, I've defended my position, and you yours, --- But apparently , you imagine that repetitively posting our previous opinions proves you are 'the winner'. -- Instead, it proves you are delusional.

No, you have just been taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response.

[nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody.

[tpaine #105] Your [sic] being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

This insanity is just indicative of your dementia.

The Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted sure has a demented idea about how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. And, of course, once again the U.S. Supreme Court says you are full of shit. It almost gets monotonous watching the Federal courts smack the shit out of your douchebaggery.

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1858)

[517]

The Constitution was not formed merely to guard the States against danger from foreign nations, but mainly to secure union and harmony at home, for if this object could be attained, there would be but little danger from abroad, and, to accomplish this purpose, it was felt by the statesmen who framed the Constitution and by the people who adopted it that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States then possessed should be ceded to the General Government, and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be supreme, and strong enough to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from State authorities. And it was evident that anything short of this would be inadequate to the main objects for which the Government was established, and that local interests, local passions or prejudices, incited and fostered by individuals for sinister purposes, would lead to acts of aggression and injustice by one State upon the rights of another, which would ultimately terminate in violence and force unless there was a common arbiter between them, armed with power enough to protect and guard the rights of all by appropriate laws to be carried into execution peacefully by its judicial tribunals.

The language of the Constitution by which this power is granted is too plain to admit of doubt or to need comment. It declares that

“this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be passed 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.”

But the supremacy thus conferred on this Government could not peacefully be maintained unless it was clothed with judicial power equally paramount in authority to carry it into execution, for if left to the courts of justice of the several States, conflicting decisions would unavoidably take place, and the local tribunals could hardly be expected to be always free

62 U. S. 518

from the local influences of which we have spoken. And the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, and the powers granted to the Federal Government, would soon receive different interpretations in different States, and the Government of the United States would soon become one thing in one State and another thing in another. It was essential, therefore, to its very existence as a Government that it should have the power of establishing courts of justice, altogether independent of State power, to carry into effect its own laws, and that a tribunal should be established in which all cases which might arise under the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, whether in a State court or a court of the United States, should be finally and conclusively decided. Without such a tribunal, it is obvious that there would be no uniformity of judicial decision, and that the supremacy, (which is but another name for independence) so carefully provided in the clause of the Constitution above referred to could not possibly be maintained peacefully unless it was associated with this paramount judicial authority.

Accordingly, it was conferred on the General Government in clear, precise, and comprehensive terms. It is declared that its judicial power shall (among other subjects enumerated) extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that, in such cases, as well as the others there enumerated, this court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. The appellate power, it will be observed, is conferred on this court in all cases or suits in which such a question shall arise. It is not confined to suits in the inferior courts of the United States, but extends to all cases where such a question arises, whether it be in a judicial tribunal of a State or of the United States. And it is manifest that this ultimate appellate power in a tribunal created by the Constitution itself was deemed essential to secure the independence and supremacy of the General Government in the sphere of action assigned to it, to make the Constitution and laws of the United States uniform, and the same in every State, and to guard against evils which would

62 U. S. 519

inevitably arise from conflicting opinions between the courts of a State and of the United States, if there was no common arbiter authorized to decide between them.

The importance which the framers of the Constitution attached to such a tribunal, for the purpose of preserving internal tranquillity, is strikingly manifested by the clause which gives this court jurisdiction over the sovereign States which compose this Union when a controversy arises between them. Instead of reserving the right to seek redress for injustice from another State by their sovereign powers, they have bound themselves to submit to the decision of this court, and to abide by its judgment. And it is not out of place to say here that experience has demonstrated that this power was not unwisely surrendered by the States, for, in the time that has already elapsed since this Government came into existence, several irritating and angry controversies have taken place between adjoining States in relation to their respective boundaries, and which have sometimes threatened to end in force and violence but for the power vested in this court to hear them and decide between them.

The same purposes are clearly indicated by the different language employed when conferring supremacy upon the laws of the United States, and jurisdiction upon its courts. In the first case, it provides that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and obligatory upon the judges in every State.”

The words in italics show the precision and foresight which marks every clause in the instrument. The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution. And as the courts of a State, and the courts of the United States, might, and indeed certainly would, often differ as to the extent of the powers conferred by the General Government, it was manifest that serious controversies would arise between the authorities of the United States and of the States, which must be settled by force of arms unless some

62 U. S. 520

tribunal was created to decide between them finally and with out appeal.

The Constitution has accordingly provided, as far as human foresight could provide, against this danger. And, in conferring judicial power upon the Federal Government, it declares that the jurisdiction of its courts shall extend to all cases arising under “this Constitution” and the laws of the United States -- leaving out the words of restriction contained in the grant of legislative power which we have above noticed. The judicial power covers every legislative act of Congress, whether it be made within the limits of its delegated powers or be an assumption of power beyond the grants in the Constitution.

This judicial power was justly regarded as indispensable not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States, but also to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government. And as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the power assigned to the Federal Government, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void. The grant of judicial power is not confined to the administration of laws passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Constitution, nor confined to the interpretation of such laws, but, by the very terms of the grant, the Constitution is under their view when any act of Congress is brought before them, and it is their duty to declare the law void, and refuse to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legislative powers conferred upon Congress. And as the final appellate power in all such questions is given to this court, controversies as to the respective powers of the United States and the States, instead of being determined by military and physical force, are heard, investigated, and finally settled with the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to see that, if such an arbiter had not been provided in our complicated system of government, internal tranquillity could not have been preserved, and if such controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, our Government, State and National, would soon cease to be Governments

62 U. S. 521

of laws, and revolutions by force of arms would take the place of courts of justice and judicial decisions.

In organizing such a tribunal, it is evident that every precaution was taken which human wisdom could devise to fit it for the high duty with which it was intrusted. It was not left to Congress to create it by law, for the States could hardly be expected to confide in the impartiality of a tribunal created exclusively by the General Government without any participation on their part. And as the performance of its duty would sometimes come in conflict with individual ambition or interests and powerful political combinations, an act of Congress establishing such a tribunal might be repealed in order to establish another more subservient to the predominant political influences or excited passions of the day. This tribunal, therefore, was erected, and the powers of which we have spoken conferred upon it, not by the Federal Government, but by the people of the States, who formed and adopted that Government and conferred upon it all the powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, which it now possesses. And in order to secure its independence and enable it faithfully and firmly to perform its duty, it engrafted it upon the Constitution itself, and declared that this court should have appellate power in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So long, therefore, as this Constitution shall endure, this tribunal must exist with it, deciding in the peaceful forms of judicial proceeding the angry and irritating controversies between sovereignties which, in other countries, have been determined by the arbitrament of force.

[nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody.

You're being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

This is just indicative of your idea about how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. And, of course, once again the U.S. Supreme Court says -----

Poor nolu, taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. --- Opinions of the various courts, including the SCOTUS, do not change the principles inherent in our Constitution, -- checks and balances being very important among those principles.

[tpaine #107] You're being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos, like your mind. It is entertaining to watch your yukon bullshit and see how incapable you are at saying anything of substance. You are just batshit crazy.

tpaine "COMMON SENSE"

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=104#C104

[nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=105#C105

[tpaine #105] yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

Because Benghazi!

- - - - -

#142">#142

[tpaine #142] No, they all give opinions that apply to the case at hand, -- these opinions do NOT change the constitution.

[nolu chan #145] tpaine hallucinates that Obergefell says only the plaintiff is entitled to same-sex marriage, and he hallucinates that Roe v. Wade says only that Jane Roe is entitled to an abortion.

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7

In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49

The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=72#C72

I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

tpaine posted on 2016-06-16 22:47:22 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=74#C74

-- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-17 20:27:12 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68

nolu chan erroneously claims: --

When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732

During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?

It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..

- - - - -

Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos ---

Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos".

Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos".

Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. Your chaotic expression of your thoughts encourage laughter.

Read and comprehend:

Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos, like your mind.

I said your mind works in a state of chaos. You express your belief that the legal system should work in a state of chaos, like your mind. Your nonsense evokes laughter.

For example:

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

It [the Court] has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment [to the Constitution] is unconstitutional.

To most sane people, it is rib tickling funny that some moron would claim that the Court could strike down a part of the Constitution as unconstitutional.

Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter.

Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor.

I can live with that..

Of course. Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States, and you are full of shit.

Valerio v. City of San Diego, CASE NO: 12-CV-1200 W (WMC) (S.D. Cal. Jun 17, 2013), page 18, n. 10

Plaintiffs' substantive due process argument is only valid insofar as it asserts a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. There can be no Fifth Amendment violation here since Defendants are not federal actors. See Barron, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833).

Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter.

Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor.

I can live with that..

Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States

How soon you've lost your sense of humor, and are back to your spanking fetish.

You're funny, in the head.

Thank you sir, may I have another?

Of course. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment.

Medcapgroup, LLC v. Mesa Pharmacy, Inc., 2:14-cv-00674-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. Jul 29, 2014)

Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter.

Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor.

I can live with that..

Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States

How soon you've lost your sense of humor, and are back to your spanking fetish.

You're funny, in the head.

Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course. As many as needed to persuade you --

Now you're asking and answering your own questions. Poor nolu... Crazy as a bedbug.

Thank you sir, may I have another?

Of course you may have yet another case. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment.

JOHNSON v. CANNON, (M.D.Fla. 1996), 947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

D. FIFTH AMENDMENT

Defendant Cannon contends that Johnson cannot establish a cause of action pursuant to the Fifth Amendment because the protections afforded by this amendment are applicable only to federal actions. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to the actions of federal, not state government. See Barron v. Mayor City Council, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833); Newsom v. Vanderbilt Univ., 653 F.2d 1100, 1113 (6th Cir. 1981). Johnson has made no allegations that any of Armstrong's actions were made under color of federal law. The Court hereby grants the Motion to Dismiss as to any alleged Fifth Amendment violation.

Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do.

[tpaine #117] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,

On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit.

Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833.

Henry A. v. Willden, 2:10-cv-00528-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Feb 27, 2013)

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, see U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), was not adopted until 1868. The Declaration of Rights that comprises Article I of the Nevada Constitution, which was adopted in 1864, was therefore necessary in order to impose certain restrictions upon the State of Nevada that were already imposed against the federal government under the Bill of Rights, and the Nevada Supreme Court has not interpreted the protections of the Declaration of Rights to exceed the scope of their federal counterparts. Michael W. Bowers, The Sagebrush State 43-44 (3rd ed., Univ. Nev. Press 2006); Michael W. Bowers, The Nevada State Constitution 24 (1993).

It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not apply to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment.