Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

Legal reasoning? Lol... who in this thread is actually

Posted on: June 14, 2018 at 13:14:21 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44901
Member For:
13.32 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
reading the plain words of the Constitution and who is relying on some unwritten, basically mystical meaning developed by the robed clerics?
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Another victory for freedom lovers - hefeweizen MU - 6/14 11:49:29
     It was absurd over-regulation.(nm) - GA Tiger MU - 6/14 13:35:41
     Did this go straight to federal court - meatiger MU - 6/14 13:09:43
     My question is why was SCOTUS even looking at this - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:01:12
          Agree - meatiger MU - 6/14 13:08:28
          It would affect any federal elections for Senate, the House - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:07:23
               The Jurisdiction comes from it being a 1st amendment issue - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:27:01
                    I don't have any issue with SCOTUS having jurisdiction - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:30:48
                         We know. You and Ragnar are in favor of centralized powers - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:32:01
                              The law abridges free speech. I'm with Ragliar on this one - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:32:51
                                   Ringo doesn't live in the real world, he lives in an overly - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:38:30
                                        Oh, so it's not about the meaning of the Constitution? - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:40:53
                                             Your interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution is - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:52:03
                                                  what does, "Congress shall make no law..." mean? (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 13:09:11
                                                  I'm not interpreting it. I'm reading it. (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:53:52
                                                       Need to do both. (nm) - mizzouSECedes STL - 6/14 13:04:16
                                                            He is unable to. His religion forbids it(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 13:10:03
                                                                 Jurisprudencism? (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 13:11:07
                                                                      no that is based on legal reasoning, your religion prevents - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 13:13:05
                                                                           Legal reasoning? Lol... who in this thread is actually - ummmm MU - 6/14 13:14:21
                                                                                no one Ringo, no one(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 13:17:48
                                                            Please read and interpret, "Congress shall make no law..." (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 13:05:57
                                                            Not always. (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 13:05:02
                                             Don't worry about it, it's beyond your ability to comprehend - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:42:35
                                                  You've explained nothing more than: - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:43:44
                                   The law does abridge free speech. But that fact alone - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:33:37
                                        It does If SCOTUS grants certiorari. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:36:07
                                             Oh, so SCOTUS gets to decide its own powers? (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:37:22
                                                  In this case, the Supremacy Clause would give them - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:53:10
                                                       lol dude you are wasting your time - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 13:18:48
                                                       No it doesn't (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 13:08:26
                                                       No, it clearly does not: - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:55:25
                                                  of course, Sparky has zero issue with Federal over-reach. - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 12:43:43
                                                       There is no overreach here. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:53:39
                                                            Oh, okay. (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:57:07
                                                       Yeah, no surprise with him or Ragnar on this point. (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:44:48
                    Also, you lashing out at someone for not reading something - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:29:34
                    How is this a First Amendment issue? - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:28:14
                         lol(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:30:44
                    Have you ever read the first amendment??? (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 12:28:01
               From the Constitution: - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:11:03
               it's not a federal issue - pickle MU - 6/14 12:09:14
                    So, state legislatures can pass laws that violate the first - mizzouSECedes STL - 6/14 12:30:29
                         It wouldn't be violating the first amendment - pickle MU - 6/14 12:45:25
                         lmfao (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 12:44:16
                         State legislatures cannot violate the First Amendment at all - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:31:23
                    lol the 1st Amendment isn't a federal issue?(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:17:07
                         The First Amendment does not say anything about the - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:25:04
                              The law abridges free speech. I'm with Ragliar on this one - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:32:13
                                   I agree it abridges free speech - pickle MU - 6/14 13:03:17
                                   the STATE gvmts aren't in the purview of the constitution. - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 12:45:32
                                        wrong. The due process clause has been interpreted - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:51:07
                                             Then those judges are either retarded or activists. (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:56:07
                                                  Lol, I don't think they're either. (nm) - mizzouSECedes STL - 6/14 13:02:36
                                                  lol(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 13:01:49
                                             lol (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 12:52:21
                                                  yeah you need to bow out of this one chief(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:53:35
                                                       lol, no Rags. I'm enjoying your Federalism and Spankyism - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 13:02:33
                                                            no you're jumping up and down like a drunk cheerleader - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 13:10:57
                                                                 I'm crystal clear here, Ringo, and laughing at you (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 13:26:02
                              ok I see you're going into pickletopia dumba$$ land - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:29:26
                                   Oh, so is that how you subvert the meaning of the law? - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:30:22
                         The first amendment isn't a state issue - pickle MU - 6/14 12:22:19
                              lol you are such a dumb$hit - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:23:56
                                   Do you think the US constitution applies to the township - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 12:46:49
                                        not in dumba$$land/pickletopia, but in the real world - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:52:53
                                   You're embarrassing yourself (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 6/14 12:45:57
                                   "Congress shall make no law..." (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:25:28
                                   What are the first five words of the first amendment? (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 12:24:53
          lol - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:06:32
               You're a lawyer, right? - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:10:16
                    do you see the "in Pursuance thereof" part? (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 12:23:36
                    lol jfc(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:15:01
                         Yeah, this is a good angle. (nm) - ummmm MU - 6/14 12:26:28
               And you're supposedly a lawyer? (nm) - pickle MU - 6/14 12:07:25
                    I'd find that hard to believe. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:08:05
                         That's because you're both monumental dumba$$es(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 6/14 12:11:55
                              No, that isn't it. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 6/14 12:36:43
     that's excellent - FootballRefugee MU - 6/14 11:59:22




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard