Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2007, 09:12   #41
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Stephen,

As far as I am concerned, WE are able to hold any opinion we want. YOU are not. If you want to be a Senator of the United States, YOUR opinion must reflect OURS, the voters, not your personal issues.

You don't become an elected official for personal issues, you do it to serve your electorate.

Your "rights" don't supercede other's rights and in a just and civilized society, it's common sense that laws must exist to police those that continue to push the envelope on the "rights" of others. You don't have a message. You don't have an answer. You don't have any idea of what it means to have laws that reflect the wishes of the Constitution.

You've read and/or listened to a bunch of rhetoric about Constitional Law and are taking it to the extreme. Extremist are bad no matter which way they swing.

If you want to sit back and have your opinions and try to exact change from your extremist viewpoint, than so-be-it. But I'll be damned if you will be elected under the Republican Party banner with the caustic ideals you hold.


And please tell me what your plans are for the FCC. Since it infringes wholly on the freedom of speech and is solely there (to use your analogy) to put businesses out of business.
Ahhh.... wow. Where to begin.

People elect other people, that share their same ideals, to office. If you don't share my ideals, then don't vote for me. It's pretty simple. At least you know where I stand, correct?

I hold an opinion of what I believe is right. I tell everyone this opinion. If they also believe this opinion, then I get elected. That is how it should work.

The Republican party has become one with the Democrats. I am a true Republican, and will be on the Republican ticket. If you think freedom is a caustic ideal, then I have nothing for you, and suggest you vote for someone else. But, at least you know what you are going to get with me.

Did you think our Founders were extremists? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but their views of a very limited government would seem very extreme by today's standards.

Now, if you would like to discuss anything about gun control, again... I'm all ears.

Stephen
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:18   #42
sweetatergal
Senior Member
 
sweetatergal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In the South
Posts: 9,259
Quote:
Originally posted by ScottWomack
They have another hunt at the Rez this weekend and then we have two more people drawn for the Pascagoula River the last weekend of this month. So we are planning on trying to catch a couple of really large gators since it is the first time to hunt Pascagoula.

Hey!!! My Hubby was drawn for the Pascagoula hunt. He will be there. He was at Ross Barnett last year too.

Ok, back to our regular scheduled program!
__________________
Never underestimate the power of a Southern Belle Temper Tantrum
sweetatergal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:37   #43
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by NoloContendere
Ahhh.... wow. Where to begin.

People elect other people, that share their same ideals, to office. If you don't share my ideals, then don't vote for me. It's pretty simple. At least you know where I stand, correct?

I hold an opinion of what I believe is right. I tell everyone this opinion. If they also believe this opinion, then I get elected. That is how it should work.

The Republican party has become one with the Democrats. I am a true Republican, and will be on the Republican ticket. If you think freedom is a caustic ideal, then I have nothing for you, and suggest you vote for someone else. But, at least you know what you are going to get with me.

Did you think our Founders were extremists? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but their views of a very limited government would seem very extreme by today's standards.

Now, if you would like to discuss anything about gun control, again... I'm all ears.

Stephen
Stephen,

You have a lot to learn about the political process. You don't share ideals with the average person.

The political process isn't just about voting for someone. It is also about keeping someone with thoughts like yours from ever being anywhere near political power because you don't hold views that are beneficial to the American public.

Quite frankly, this nonsense of attempting utilize the "Founding Fathers" as some weak basis of argument for modern day politics explains why you are so narrow-minded in your views. How or why you think that these individuals somehow wrote a few words that would overwhelming police our society as it has evolved is so lacking in common sense, that I'm now worried that there are others here that seem to think like you.

I suggest you learn the basis for your arguments.

First: the Constitution does not hold that you have a right to bear arms. An amendment from 1791 does, the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. Your "Founding Fathers" contention is just baseless if you take the novelty out of your argument, for argument's sake, and simply look at the truth.

Amendments were made due to changes needed to the Constituion.

Did the "Founding Fathers" get it wrong? Yes. If they didn't you wouldn't have things like the 19th Amendment from the 1920s giving women the right to vote. Or do you propose to do away with that?

Basis for argument is foundation. Without foundation you look like just another extremist and your attempt to align yourself with the "Founding Fathers" is an insult, at best.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:59   #44
NoloContendere
OAF Lawyer
 
NoloContendere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,044
First, you are not answering my gun control questions. Why not? What do YOU have to hide?

Who do you think the average person is?

"It is also about keeping someone with thoughts like yours from ever being anywhere near political power because you don't hold views that are beneficial to the American public."

How are my views not beneficial? That I merely suggest interpreting the Constitution as it were written? Wow. A novel idea for sure.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I never said that I don't have a lot to learn. I am *constantly* learning. I am also putting myself out there. What are you doing?

Stephen
__________________
Something goes here....
NoloContendere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 10:41   #45
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by NoloContendere
First, you are not answering my gun control questions. Why not? What do YOU have to hide?

Who do you think the average person is?

"It is also about keeping someone with thoughts like yours from ever being anywhere near political power because you don't hold views that are beneficial to the American public."

How are my views not beneficial? That I merely suggest interpreting the Constitution as it were written? Wow. A novel idea for sure.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I never said that I don't have a lot to learn. I am *constantly* learning. I am also putting myself out there. What are you doing?

Stephen
I don't need to answer any questions from you. I'm not seeking an elected office.

Your "views" are detrimental to the stability of society because you don't understand anything that you talk about. You don't have a grasp on the Constitution, much less what law is about.

What am in doing?

1. Making sure the someone like you never reaches a public office because your views are detrimental.

2. Not talking about running for a public office.

3. Not grandstanding on ideas that don't have merit because I read them somewhere.

4. Thinking for myself and not putting down everyone else - ie. the Republican Party, ATF, current and past elected Congressmen.



You don't have a snowball's chance in hell with the views you hold. Not because of you, I don't know you. But because you don't understand your views and you certainly don't understand what the United States is about. There are so many inaccurate statements you have made in this one thread that makes me wonder exactly what your point is.

Personally, I think this is a self-serving announcement that has no meat to it what-so-ever. It's my opinion, just from what I've read here, that you are ill-prepared for your agenda and your agenda is awash with rhetoric instead of fact-based arguments.

Your "views" are detrimental because they are based in ignorance and narrow-mindedness. You stated I was wrong earlier about the Supremacy Clause.

I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 10:57   #46
BuLC86
Registered User
 
BuLC86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 7734
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON


I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable.
and congress has done such a wonderful job keeping society STABLE. NOT
maybe its time for a change in the way things have been done in the past and start looking to improve the future. Stephen would be a good person to start a change in the right direction instead of going backwards wich is what we have been doing for centuries and will continue to do unless something or someone changes the way our gov. is run
BuLC86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 14:59   #47
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable.
Article IV in its entirety. The aforementioned article is broken up in paragraphs. I assume the gentlemen was referring to the second paragraph in the article in his post. I see nothing in the second paragraph, or the entire article for that matter which contains anything regarding the stability of American society. Perhaps someone more enlightened than I can point out what I am overlooking.......

"Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 17:05   #48
TheGreatGonzo
Clown Hunter
 
TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lost in thought...
Posts: 1,490
Dauntless,
I love your avatar!
Gonzo
TheGreatGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 18:38   #49
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
Article IV in its entirety. The aforementioned article is broken up in paragraphs. I assume the gentlemen was referring to the second paragraph in the article in his post. I see nothing in the second paragraph, or the entire article for that matter which contains anything regarding the stability of American society. Perhaps someone more enlightened than I can point out what I am overlooking.......

"Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on why it is necessary for laws to be written. Once you explain that, maybe then you can understand the context of the Article.

Or maybe you are, once again, choosing to be "picky" and not allowing me the latitude to summarize what is common sense.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 21:16   #50
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on why it is necessary for laws to be written. Once you explain that, maybe then you can understand the context of the Article.

Or maybe you are, once again, choosing to be "picky" and not allowing me the latitude to summarize what is common sense.
I'm currently enrolled in Constitutional Law in Law School. In the cases I've read, the supremacy clause has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to have been included in our Constitution in order to cement the preeminence of federal law when it comes into conflict with state law. I'm unaware of any holding by the Supreme Court that the clause enumerates any grant of power in the Congress to legislate. If you could provide me with a case cite to the contrary, I'd be happy admit to being incorrect.

In case you're interested in the Constitutional source of Congress' power, take a look at Article I. In particular the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has allowed the expansion of the scope of Congress' power to legislate on a great many subjects based on this part of the Constitution.

You made an assertion, based on insufficient knowledge, assuming said assertion wouldn't be challenged, you were wrong. It's ok. No need for hostility.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 21:17   #51
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreatGonzo
Dauntless,
I love your avatar!
Gonzo
Thanks Gonzo!

About 3 months after I joined GT, I did a google search for "avatar," and found the jolly roger on one of the sites that came up.

__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 21:38   #52
Norman
CLM Number 32
Non nobis
 
Norman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,042
Nolo - you know I stand behind you on this all the way. Let me share something with you that I realized for myself some time ago.

I once came to a conclusion a few years back, probably during my first year of college... my conclusion was that many people talk about working on your weaknesses to make you a better overall rounded individual. I think that's a load of left-thinking liberal arts crap. I think it's more beneficial to take your strengths and make them even stronger. To hell with your weaknesses, they won't make you anything. Your strengths will.

So what's my point with that tidbit of insight? These naysayers are weakness. Don't waste your time trying to bring them up to a certain level, or try to convince them to see something. Forget them. Look at your strengths - the people who believe in you - and fortify them, and they will take you to the next level.

Just my opinion.
Norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 12:15   #53
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
I'm currently enrolled in Constitutional Law in Law School. In the cases I've read, the supremacy clause has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to have been included in our Constitution in order to cement the preeminence of federal law when it comes into conflict with state law. I'm unaware of any holding by the Supreme Court that the clause enumerates any grant of power in the Congress to legislate. If you could provide me with a case cite to the contrary, I'd be happy admit to being incorrect.

In case you're interested in the Constitutional source of Congress' power, take a look at Article I. In particular the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has allowed the expansion of the scope of Congress' power to legislate on a great many subjects based on this part of the Constitution.

You made an assertion, based on insufficient knowledge, assuming said assertion wouldn't be challenged, you were wrong. It's ok. No need for hostility.
Whoa there sport. Don't try to take things out of context in some vain attempt at winning an internet argument.

Follow along with what was said and maybe then you can understand. Nolo, was attempting to purport a message that the Constitition was the Supreme Law of the Land and that Laws put into place by sitting Senators and Representatives since are somehow inferior.

The Supremecy Clause, as held in Article VI, paragraph 2 states, explicitly, that all Laws of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Try to work with the subjects at hand and stop arguing tangent material that doesn't apply.

I don't have a college degree. Maybe got 2 full years of courses from a junior college. But, I also don't need to use it as a crutch to support an ill-informed position.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 12:23   #54
walangkatapat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Orygun
Posts: 7,711
Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Background checks don't "catch" criminals. They stop guns from getting into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

Thats worked well.
__________________
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
walangkatapat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 02:08   #55
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Whoa there sport. Don't try to take things out of context in some vain attempt at winning an internet argument.

Follow along with what was said and maybe then you can understand. Nolo, was attempting to purport a message that the Constitition was the Supreme Law of the Land and that Laws put into place by sitting Senators and Representatives since are somehow inferior.

The Supremecy Clause, as held in Article VI, paragraph 2 states, explicitly, that all Laws of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Try to work with the subjects at hand and stop arguing tangent material that doesn't apply.

I don't have a college degree. Maybe got 2 full years of courses from a junior college. But, I also don't need to use it as a crutch to support an ill-informed position.
The laws passed by the Congress are subordinate to the Constitution. I'll cite the text again.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....."

Note the language. Particularly, "in pursuance thereof," this part of the sentence subjugates the laws passed by the Congress to the textual enumerations of power contained in the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress, do indeed work in conjunction. You are however, misinterpreting the purpose of the Supremacy Clause. Again, the purpose of said clause was to resolve any issue that may arise when the laws enacted by the States came into conflict with those of the Federal Government. Your position is untenable. In support of these assertions, see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 and McCullough v. Maryland,
17 U.S. 316. These two Supreme Court opinions, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, remain good case law.

If you are in fact coming to your conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Constitution, fine. If you are asserting that the positions you are taking are in accord with those of the Supreme Court of the United States, however, I'd ask you to provide us with case law backing up said positions. Once again, I'd be happy to admit to being in error.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 09:31   #56
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
The laws passed by the Congress are subordinate to the Constitution. I'll cite the text again.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....."

Note the language. Particularly, "in pursuance thereof," this part of the sentence subjugates the laws passed by the Congress to the textual enumerations of power contained in the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress, do indeed work in conjunction. You are however, misinterpreting the purpose of the Supremacy Clause. Again, the purpose of said clause was to resolve any issue that may arise when the laws enacted by the States came into conflict with those of the Federal Government. Your position is untenable. In support of these assertions, see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 and McCullough v. Maryland,
17 U.S. 316. These two Supreme Court opinions, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, remain good case law.

If you are in fact coming to your conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Constitution, fine. If you are asserting that the positions you are taking are in accord with those of the Supreme Court of the United States, however, I'd ask you to provide us with case law backing up said positions. Once again, I'd be happy to admit to being in error.
Which part do you not get? The Supreme Law of the Land including Federal Statutes or the fact that you obviously have no grasp on the discussion at hand?

BTW, you are making your little attempt at quoting case law. So chew on this. From your cited case Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall wrote "In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."


I am not misinterpreting anything. The words are there and have been there since first being written.

Make an attempt to read through the posts and try to resolve the issue at hand, and then admit your error. I purported 2 DIFFERENT things. That NOLO was incorrect by not including Federal Statutes as The Supreme Law of the Land and SECONDLY, and completely separately, that Congress has the power to enact those Federal Statutes that further define certain aspects that are laid out in the Constitution, along with establishing entirely new statutes that provide for the betterment and protection of society. Also learned in grade school, the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, allows the Judicial Branch to determine if and when those statutes crosses the line. To suggest that anyone expected the Constitution itself to remain as is and be the Supreme Law without revision or addition such as Federal Statutes, would be utterly stupid. It's called the framework for a reason. If you will allow me my leeway with layman's interpretations.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 15:38   #57
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Which part do you not get? The Supreme Law of the Land including Federal Statutes or the fact that you obviously have no grasp on the discussion at hand?

BTW, you are making your little attempt at quoting case law. So chew on this. From your cited case Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall wrote "In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."


I am not misinterpreting anything. The words are there and have been there since first being written.

Make an attempt to read through the posts and try to resolve the issue at hand, and then admit your error. I purported 2 DIFFERENT things. That NOLO was incorrect by not including Federal Statutes as The Supreme Law of the Land and SECONDLY, and completely separately, that Congress has the power to enact those Federal Statutes that further define certain aspects that are laid out in the Constitution, along with establishing entirely new statutes that provide for the betterment and protection of society. Also learned in grade school, the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, allows the Judicial Branch to determine if and when those statutes crosses the line. To suggest that anyone expected the Constitution itself to remain as is and be the Supreme Law without revision or addition such as Federal Statutes, would be utterly stupid. It's called the framework for a reason. If you will allow me my leeway with layman's interpretations.

Correct, federal law is the supreme law when it comes in conflict with state law.

Second, I neither attempted to, nor did I quote anything from the cases I mentioned. What I did was to successfully cite two cases that supported my position. You then quoted text from the case that supported said position; Federal law is supreme over state law.

You aren't misinterpreting anything? how about this quote from one of your earlier posts? "I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." The Supremacy Clause doesn't provide Congress any power.....Article 1 primarily does...the Supremacy Clause, as I've stated and you've reinforced w/ a quote from Gibbons, provides resolution when federal and state law come in conflict.

Nolo didn't have to include federal law in his statement as it was contextually irrelevant. He was stating that he believed certain laws were unconstitutional. If said laws are unconstitutional, they are therefore not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution and wouldn't qualify as supreme under the supremacy clause, as they were facially invalid.

Of course Congress has the power to legislate under the powers enumerated under Article 1. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. You state that you learned in grade school that the judiciary has the power to review legislation to determine what "crosses the line." To what line do you refer? If you are indicating that the Constitution draws that line, then you are correct. Thus federal law, although supreme in opposition to state law, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. Who would suggest that Congress was expected not to make and pass laws? Why in the world would the framers had given them the powers to legislate over the subjects they did in Article 1 (as opposed to Article 6 as you had asserted) had they intended for Congress not to legislate in regards to those subjects? I don't recall making any assertion that would indicate that Congress did not enjoy the power to make laws......unless of course those laws conflict with the Constitution.

As to your veiled insults......."Also learned in grade school," etc. Other than this paragraph, don't expect me to respond to them. I would prefer it if you would attempt to keep the discourse civil, but if you choose not to, you are on your own. I do take comfort however in knowing that generally people do not resort to that type of behavior in a disagreement unless they are finding the merits of their arguments lacking.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 17:09   #58
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
Correct, federal law is the supreme law when it comes in conflict with state law.

Second, I neither attempted to, nor did I quote anything from the cases I mentioned. What I did was to successfully cite two cases that supported my position. You then quoted text from the case that supported said position; Federal law is supreme over state law.

You aren't misinterpreting anything? how about this quote from one of your earlier posts? "I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." The Supremacy Clause doesn't provide Congress any power.....Article 1 primarily does...the Supremacy Clause, as I've stated and you've reinforced w/ a quote from Gibbons, provides resolution when federal and state law come in conflict.

Nolo didn't have to include federal law in his statement as it was contextually irrelevant. He was stating that he believed certain laws were unconstitutional. If said laws are unconstitutional, they are therefore not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution and wouldn't qualify as supreme under the supremacy clause, as they were facially invalid.

Of course Congress has the power to legislate under the powers enumerated under Article 1. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. You state that you learned in grade school that the judiciary has the power to review legislation to determine what "crosses the line." To what line do you refer? If you are indicating that the Constitution draws that line, then you are correct. Thus federal law, although supreme in opposition to state law, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. Who would suggest that Congress was expected not to make and pass laws? Why in the world would the framers had given them the powers to legislate over the subjects they did in Article 1 (as opposed to Article 6 as you had asserted) had they intended for Congress not to legislate in regards to those subjects? I don't recall making any assertion that would indicate that Congress did not enjoy the power to make laws......unless of course those laws conflict with the Constitution.

As to your veiled insults......."Also learned in grade school," etc. Other than this paragraph, don't expect me to respond to them. I would prefer it if you would attempt to keep the discourse civil, but if you choose not to, you are on your own. I do take comfort however in knowing that generally people do not resort to that type of behavior in a disagreement unless they are finding the merits of their arguments lacking.


Nolo specifically said, "Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land?"

and the context of this was about Federal Laws that restrict and control certain gun ownership.

Instead of continuing arguing because you are butthurt, simple do what you said you would do and admit to your error.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 02:00   #59
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Nolo specifically said, "Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land?"

and the context of this was about Federal Laws that restrict and control certain gun ownership.

Instead of continuing arguing because you are butthurt, simple do what you said you would do and admit to your error.
He did and it is.

Correct.

I am butthurt? Simple do what I said I would do and admit my error (did you mean simply)? You lost me there, Paragon. Just like you've lost this particular debate.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 07:31   #60
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
He did and it is.

Correct.

I am butthurt? Simple do what I said I would do and admit my error (did you mean simply)? You lost me there, Paragon. Just like you've lost this particular debate.
See, you can not admit it. You are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and being "picky" because you have nothing else.

He did and it isn't, period. You simply do not understand because you obviously don't have the capacity to. You can't state something to be absolutely without including it's entirety, especially when it's entirety is hugely part of the subject. ie - Federal Statutes. Federal Statutes are not subordinate to the Constitution until tested and decided so. That was set forth in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a framework for a government, not just a system of law. The system of law is a continued entity.

Therefore, to state it's the Supreme Law of the Land without including the rest of the text is either stupid, or it's what people absolutely hate attorneys for. They choose to ignore what is specifially written in one case, all the while, they hold the very word-for-word written text in another.

The ultimate in hypocrisy. Enjoy it.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 770
226 Members
544 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31