Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 May '17 23:06
    I saw this posted somewhere else and I find the concept more and more intriguing.


    "I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

    The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can."
  2. 01 May '17 23:11 / 1 edit
    It is interesting to note that early in American History they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, that essentially made it illegal to speak out against government. Thomas Jefferson then rose to power and later struck down most of it, luckily.

    However, FDR later came along and used the left over provisions to lock up innocent Japanese Americans.

    It is obvious to all that the acts were not constitutional, nor was FDR's act constitutional. No one denies this yet the Constitution was violated without so much as a peep.

    I don't count Jefferson striking it down as a check or balance, rather, we just got lucky he won the Oval Office when he did. Otherwise, all you hipsters would be in jail railing against Trump
  3. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    01 May '17 23:32
    I have heard it said the Constitution was designed for godly people. It would not work well with the ungodly even though there seem to be some protections against tyranny.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 May '17 23:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I saw this posted somewhere else and I find the concept more and more intriguing.


    "I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

    The 'Bill of ...[text shortened]... ns they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can."
    So you read something from someone ignorant of what the Constitution is and, dumb as you are, it made sense to you.

    That's sad but not terribly surprising.

    Words of "wisdom" from anonymous internet poster Buck111.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-constitution-is-a-con-game.543929/
  5. 02 May '17 00:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So you read something from someone ignorant of what the Constitution is and, dumb as you are, it made sense to you.

    That's sad but not terribly surprising.
    So I'm a dumb, dumb

    Thanks for your typical contribution.

    How are those sanctuary cities coming along that violate federal law?

    And no, I could care less about the hair brain explanations for them.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '17 00:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    So I'm a dumb, dumb

    Thanks for your typical contribution.

    How are those sanctuary cities coming along that violate federal law?

    And no, I could care less about the hair brain explanations for them.
    As of yet, it has not been determined they do. Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment might very well preclude the Feds from forcing the States and localities from enforcing Federal law.

    I know you don't want to hear that, but that's because you prefer to be an ignorant, partisan shill.
  7. 02 May '17 00:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As of yet, it has not been determined they do. Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment might very well preclude the Feds from forcing the States and localities from enforcing Federal law.

    I know you don't want to hear that, but that's because you prefer to be an ignorant, partisan shill.
    I vote for sanctuary cities from abortion and federal income tax.

    Let me guess, that is unconstitutional, but sanctuary cities are, right?

    That is because the US has become a nation of men, not laws.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '17 00:15
    Originally posted by whodey
    I vote for sanctuary cities from abortion and federal income tax.

    Let me guess, that is unconstitutional, but sanctuary cities are, right?

    That is because the US has become a nation of men, not laws.
    Do you know what a sanctuary city even is? I doubt it:

    Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.8f3dc5e4937c

    The Feds don't use the States or localities personnel to enforce Federal income tax laws. And reproductive choice is a personal right protected against all levels of government. That the law protects personal rights you and other fanatics don't like is just TFB.

    Happy to help.
  9. 02 May '17 01:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you know what a sanctuary city even is? I doubt it:

    Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments t ...[text shortened]... he law protects personal rights you and other fanatics don't like is just TFB.

    Happy to help.
    Wait....wut?

    I thought Arizona got sued by the Obama administration for trying to enforce federal immigration laws. Of course, Obama won.....as he always does.

    Like I said, the court system is rigged by Progs like yourself.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '17 01:29
    Originally posted by whodey
    Wait....wut?

    I thought Arizona got sued by the Obama administration for trying to enforce federal immigration laws. Of course, Obama won.....as he always does.

    Like I said, the court system is rigged by Progs like yourself.
    No, Arizona got sued because it made laws regulating immigration, a power expressly given exclusively to Congress.

    Was Scalia a "Prog"? The "commandeering" doctrine he followed in Printz prevented Congress from forcing local sheriffs and police chiefs from doing Brady bill background checks against their will. Do you find that decision objectionable?
  11. 02 May '17 01:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No, Arizona got sued because it made laws regulating immigration, a power expressly given exclusively to Congress.

    Was Scalia a "Prog"? The "commandeering" doctrine he followed in Printz prevented Congress from forcing local sheriffs and police chiefs from doing Brady bill background checks against their will. Do you find that decision objectionable?
    I see, so Progs can force law enforcement NOT to do background checks and enforce immigration laws in sanctuary cities.

    Got it!

    Incidentally, if a police officer suspects a bank robbery is taking place, can the state force him to uphold the law?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 May '17 01:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I see, so Progs can force law enforcement NOT to do background checks and enforce immigration laws in sanctuary cities.

    Got it!

    Incidentally, if a police officer suspects a bank robbery is taking place, can the state force him to uphold the law?
    Why do I waste my time explaining to a partisan shill things he has no intention of trying to understand?

    Read the Ilya Somin article and learn something. BTW, he's not a "Prog" either but a right wing libertarian and originalist. If you bother to do so, you'll understand that "Progs" who run cities can have their police officers not be commandeered to enforce Federal law. You also might try to understand why that is different from a State passing laws regulating immigration.
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    02 May '17 01:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I saw this posted somewhere else and I find the concept more and more intriguing.


    "I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

    The 'Bill of ...[text shortened]... ns they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can."
    The part of this I take umbrage to is this: "yet they can be suspended by the government." If your given is false, your entire argument is false.

    Cite some examples, please, and try not to use fake news sites to do so.
  14. 02 May '17 01:58
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why do I waste my time explaining to a partisan shill things he has no intention of trying to understand?

    Read the Ilya Somin article and learn something. BTW, he's not a "Prog" either but a right wing libertarian and originalist. If you bother to do so, you'll understand that "Progs" who run cities can have their police officers not be commandeered t ...[text shortened]... might try to understand why that is different from a State passing laws regulating immigration.
    So what does this libertarian and "originalist" have to say about sanctuary cities? My guess is nothing.
  15. 02 May '17 02:00
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    The part of this I take umbrage to is this: "yet they can be suspended by the government." If your given is false, your entire argument is false.

    Cite some examples, please, and try not to use fake news sites to do so.
    When Japanese Americans were imprisoned by the thug FDR, they suspended their Civil rights.

    I don't think even Marauder would argue otherwise.