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. Did you see this? It is directly for the Constitution as originally ratified. It is exactly what I posted to you in Post #44. You have the ability to pull up posts that you have deleted. Repost my Post #44 and let everyone see for themselves how wrong you were. Just do it …

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?

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.

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.

Liar. I never said only the constitution is the law of the land. I said if a law contradicted the constitution it isn't truly a law or constitutional.

For example for umpteenth time. Congress shall make no law.....

If a law contradicts that than it isn't constitutional. Since any law congress would make would be unconstitutional on its face because they are explicitly forbidden to make laws having to do with peaceful assembly and the other rights recognized in the first amendment.

But you are a pinhead or a serial liar and wont admit the truth when it smacks your ugly mug.

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.

No dipshit you don't have it right. You rarely do.

Show me one place I've ever said in my entire life that the constitution is the stand alone law. I've never even had that thought or an inkling of that thought in my life. And you even put it in quotes you deceptive prick.

You conveniently ignore the word Persuance. Why is that? Are you to much of a dunce to understand what that means?

That is why i am belittling you by the way. Because you don't acknowledge the words of the constituion and only offer articles you google up that don't address anything I've asked for days or weeks.

No dipshit you don't have it right. You rarely do. Show me one place I've ever said in my entire life that the constitution is the stand alone law. I did show you here. As webmaster you can easily restore that and the subsequent post with further evidence. So do it and we shall see the truth. Come on, you chicken shit forum owner who hides behind his “delete authority” to cover up for his ignorance and mistakes when they are pointed out to him – just repost the information you wanted so desperately to hide, and did.

You conveniently ignore the word Persuance. Why is that? That is an accusation I will INSIST that you PROVE. I challenge you to show me here exactly where I left the word out. Can you? No you can’t. Why can’t you? Because you deleted the post to cover up your ignorance and mistakes. Now you have the gall to make a malicious charge againT me tht you cannot in any prove. That is so shamefully typical of you. That is why i am belittling you by the way. Because you don't acknowledge the words of the constituion and only offer articles you google up that don't address anything I've asked for days or weeks. Stone, PLEASE. When I do correctly acknowledge the words of the Constitution and chastise you for being incorrect – You delete my posts to cover up your ignorance and mistakes. And then you make malicious charges against me for which you can supply no evidence. And that is why I am belitting you by continually calling you a FASCIST PIG.

If a law contradicts that than it isn't constitutional. Since any law congress would make would be unconstitutional on its face because they are explicitly forbidden to make laws having to do with peaceful assembly and the other rights recognized in the first amendment. Duh … Well – Yea …

But you are a pinhead or a serial liar and wont admit the truth when it smacks your ugly mug. You are the FASCIST PIG that deletes my posts when I show you the truth and you delete my posts to cover up your ignoarance and mistakes. As a self-annoyed expert on the Constitution – why is it you have no snese of justice. Oh, you would say that you do – But it must be by the rule of stone’s justice. What am I talking about? Your Mission Statement says: “… one feels needs to be discussed is welcome at Liberty's Flame. This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand. You are the perhaps the biggest LIAR I have ever cme in contact with. You do not believe in the “idea of free speech” – You delete posts that show your ignorance and mistakes. And that is why I call you a FASCIST PIG.

You conveniently ignore the word Persuance. Why is that? Assuming that to be true, then why did you not ask me that question at the time you read my post instead of throwing one of your notorious hissy fits and deleting my post? Why do you have so much trouble all the time acting rationally?

Show me one place I've never said in my entire life that the constitution is the stand alone law. DAMIT, get your FUCKING head out of your ass. I neve said that you said the “Constitution is the sand alone law. What I specially was: “Do I have this right, Stone? And do you now understand that the Constitution is not the “stand alone Law of the Land.” I said stand alone “Law of Land” – not stand alone “law.” If you are still confused, go back and read again] Furthermore, you said it here: Ok dunce lets start here. The constitution is the Supreme law of the land. When you made that statement, you intentionally left out the underlined portion of Article VI Section 2 as indicated below: 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 With you intentionally omitted the underline portion, there can absolutely no question that you said it was a stand-alone comment. Had you not meant that, then ordinary intelligence would have required the additional “pursuant” comment. Furthermore, Stone, I am going to show you how your wicked minds does not function rationally. Look what you said to me in the same post. You conveniently ignore the word Persuance [sic]. Why is that? Are you to much of a dunce to understand what that means? Yet you conveniently left that out of your in your post here> when you stated: Ok dunce lets start here. The constitution is the Supreme law of the land. You have to change it with an amendment. If we can't start with that then you can get lost and stay off this thread. Since it is the Supreme law of the land. You have to show me something in the Constitution that says the bullshit you just posted up there. Dumbass Disrespectfully Stone, why did you do that – Intentionally leave out “pursuant?” Stone, you are very irrational in your comments. You make it hard to impossible for intelligent people to follow what you are “trying” to say. You are very confusing.

Show me one place I've ever said in my entire life that the constitution is the stand alone law.

I did show you here. As webmaster you can easily restore that and the subsequent post with further evidence. So do it and we shall see the truth.

Come on, you chicken shit forum owner who hides behind his “delete authority” to cover up for his ignorance and mistakes when they are pointed out to him – just repost the information you wanted so desperately to hide, and did.

No you didn't show me that in that post. I deleted some of your posts because I told you to stay off the thread or answer the question.

So you are a liar. If you say you are not you can just give us a quote from me. But are a lying sack of shit.

You conveniently ignore the word Persuance. Why is that? Assuming that to be true, then why did you not ask me that question at the time you read my post instead of throwing one of your notorious hissy fits and deleting my post?

Why do you have so much trouble all the time acting rationally?

Look weirdo. When I said laws that are contrary to the constitution that means the same things as laws made in pursuance. You really are a fucking twat retard liar.

If a law contradicts that than it isn't constitutional. Since any law congress would make would be unconstitutional on its face because they are explicitly forbidden to make laws having to do with peaceful assembly and the other rights recognized in the first amendment. Duh …

Do have dementia freak? You said the government can shut down peaceful assembly in churches.

Have you considered suicide?

Your Mission Statement says: “… one feels needs to be discussed is welcome at Liberty's Flame. This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand.

You're an asshole. You don't get to come here and lie and think I will keep your garbage posts up.

Go climb a tall ladder today and clean your gutters.

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.

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".

Look weirdo. When I said laws that are contrary to the constitution that means the same things as laws made in pursuance. You really are a fucking twat retard liar It means the same thing, only in your mind – ONLY IN YOU MIND – and you mind is really fucked up and whacked out of shape. Using your psychotic rational, I can say that leaving out the word “pursuant” – assuming that I did, and youhave been unable to prove I did – then I can use your warped logic and say leaving the word out “meant the same thing.” Really Stone, you have a weird way of expressing yourself. It is a manner that only you understand and no one else does. Work on that … You also need to do something about your poor reading comprehension. Do you have someone there that can help you with this? You desperately need immediate help. You also have trouble expressing yourself as we are seeing now. It gets even worse when you go into your hissy fits. Try calming down before you hit the keyboard. Please ….

Do have dementia freak? I don’t think so. I haven;t seen any around. What does it look like? You said the government can shut down peaceful assembly in churches They definitely can, during certain conditions. I posted to you a full copy of ALL the state laws. The ones challenged to be unconstitutional have stood the SCOTUS test and declared not to be unconstitutional. Some are now filing law suits to test their constitutionality under this present condition. We shall see what happens. Stay tunes. You specifically asked about Ohio and I highlighted that. You obviously are reading all my posts. Shame on you … Have you considered suicide? Nah, I am a Christian and we don’t do that. I can see you have been unsuccessful since you are still hitting the keyboard to post your incoherent messages.

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).

Your Mission Statement says: “… one feels needs to be discussed is welcome at Liberty's Flame. This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand. That is YOUR mission statement – Right? Then why don’t you follow it? You're an asshole. Nah, you are the asshole for lying about your mission statement. And I have repeatedly shown where you did. You don't get to come here and lie and think I will keep your garbage posts up. Ah. You are making the old whimpering threat again. Translation: “If you don’t stop showing up my ignorance, I am not only going to delete your post, I am going to ban you to cover up my mistakes. “ Go climb a tall ladder today and clean your gutters. My penthouse has no gutters. Arizona is a “dry” state.

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. It is impossible not to notice that we have a couple of those individuals that use that exact irrational reasoning here on LF. I actually think their problem should be classified as a “disease.” Less strange things are. But then why should it be since it is an uncurable condition anyway.

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 ..