1. We are currently experiencing issues with viewing and uploading images, our team is working on the issue.
    Dismiss Notice

How many people understand the US Constitution?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MadMel, May 14, 2017.

  1.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member


    Freedom and a coercion based government are opposing concepts. You are attempting to hold two opposing points of view at once.

    Good day sir.
     
  2.  
    Justin-case

    Justin-case Well-Known Member


    Ha, tired of " loosing " ?
     
  3.  
    TacoMac

    TacoMac Well-Known Member

    No. It has to do with real property law.

    Any real property not titled to or leased to a person, persons or organized entity is by default the property of the State. As such, nothing can be done on that real property without the expressed permission of the State.

    So, if you decide to walk into a random field, plant a crop, grow it and harvest it or build a house / barn / stable / whatever, without bothering to find out who owns the land, obtain rights and/or a lease to farm it / build on it / whatever, then the owner or State (whichever is applicable) can quite literally take the crop / building / whatever. What's more, they can also fine you, sue for damages, and press criminal charges against you.

    This, once again, is an example of how ignorant the vast majority of Americans are about basic law. This thread is exhibit A on that.
     
  4.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    why do you continue to compare equal rights for black people to theft?

    civil rights did not take any rights away from you, civil rights just gave equal rights to black people.

    segregationist.
     
  5.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    only segregationists use that term.
     
  6.  
    TacoMac

    TacoMac Well-Known Member

    Fixed that for you.
     
    abandonconflict, srh88 and UncleBuck like this.
  7.  
    tampee

    tampee Well-Known Member

    Down to the war on drugs is unconstitutional they made a Constitutional amendment for the Volstead Act but not drugs.

    But it's a shame so many people are against the Constitution @UncleBuck is even against the 2nd amendment probably the 1rst too since he goes on about hate speech and fake news.
     
    MadMel likes this.
  8.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    living rent free in a retard's empty head. feels-good-mon.jpg
     
    abandonconflict and Justin-case like this.
  9.  
    TacoMac

    TacoMac Well-Known Member

    Congratulations. You now have the single dumbest comment on this entire thread. Well done.
     
    Fogdog, UncleBuck and Justin-case like this.
  10.  
    MadMel

    MadMel Member

    It could be argued that it violates the 9th amendment, which says;

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Enumeration means nothing more than "listed", this refers to the other amendments which list some pretty specific rights.

    The 9th amendment says that we have more rights than those which are specifically listed. However it's up to "we the people", to demand those rights.

    Might I suggest that, when reading the Constitution, you should also have a dictionary at hand.

    Also there is a legal thing called "precedent". If it took an amendment to make alcohol illegal, then it logically follows that it would also take an amendment to make marijuana, or any other drug, illegal. For over a hundred years no drugs of any kind was illegal. Only after the 18th amendment was the drug alcohol illegal. The 21st repealed the 18th
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
  11.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    is that you, doer?
     
    Rrog likes this.
  12.  
    MadMel

    MadMel Member

    You people make me laugh. Are you so paranoid that you believe that I am someone who I am not? Put down your meth pipe, and mellow out. The world is NOT out to get you. At least I'm not. Bwahahaha!
     
  13.  
    esh dov ets

    esh dov ets Well-Known Member

    go to organics section also in organics is a subcool thread. also try using the search bars.
    are you a Constitution Party member? left or right?
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
  14.  
    DiogenesTheWiser

    DiogenesTheWiser Well-Known Member

    First townships, then RFDs, then towns, then cities, then counties (parishes), and then states all outlawed alcohol long before the Volstead Act. It didn't take a constitutional amendment. Localities did it first.

    Local temperance leaders were incensed that after outlawing alcohol's sale, manufacture, and possession in their local communities that Supreme Court decisions cited the federal Interstate Commerce Commission to render these local ordinances null and void. Alcohol manufacturers and distributors had to travel with alcohol through dry areas, and the sought protection from the courts to do so. Moreover, once a local town or county would go dry, enterprising citizens of a nearby town or county would go wet to make money off the drinkers in the next community over. This is why temperance organizations fumed for national prohibition of alcohol through an amendment.

    For more information on the Volstead Act, see Ken Burns's documentary series Prohibition. Watch the entire first episode and half of the second. The narrator explains everything with primary source documentation shown on screen. See also books by Jonathan Zimmerman on the culture of temperance.
     
    MadMel likes this.
  15.  
    TacoMac

    TacoMac Well-Known Member

    No, it couldn't. The war on drugs involves interstate commerce and national security. As such, it is the COMPLETE domain of the Federal Government and is not regulated or subject to Constitutional Individual Rights.

    Once again, a very stupid comment. That's like saying one can argue NASA's funding violates the 14th amendment because the government doesn't fund the NAACP.
     
    DiogenesTheWiser likes this.
  16.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member


    I'm not comparing equal rights to theft, slow person.

    I'm saying all people should equally have the same right to determine the use of their own property and their own body.
     
  17.  
    Justin-case

    Justin-case Well-Known Member


    Exactly what a racist pedophile would say^^^^^^
     
    UncleBuck likes this.
  18.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member


    Well, that was succinctly fallacious.
     
  19.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member


    Legal sophistry aside, how and why does the "default" ownership to the state occur ?

    What makes it legitimate ?
     
  20.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member


    So, which term would you use to describe a person who thinks forced human associations are okay, Poopy Pants ? Rapist? Slave master? Which one?
     

Share This Page