misterman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 12,913
- Reaction score
- 2,096
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
lol is there anything they don't make??? Purina that is...
Human Chow.
lol is there anything they don't make??? Purina that is...
Human Chow.
they do make human food though..
If Schumer dies from an aneurysm, I'm cool with that.
That was awesome, dude! Boy, I would not even to attempt such profound statements.:roll:
Bet he had to look up how to spell aneurysm though.
Link here
Umm, what?
He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?
This is ridiculous.
Funny....if it had gone the other way, the same people thanking you Zyph would be screaming that they were all "Activist Judges".....
That's the irony in this.
That was awesome, dude! Boy, I would not even to attempt such profound statements.:roll:
The court ruled on something that's clearly disallowed by the Constitution, ie, Congress can't pass laws abridging freedom of speech.
If the court had ruled the other way, they would have been wrong, and yes, THEN they would have been activist judges.
I rest my case. Where in the Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a person and entitled to the same rights as people?
Where does it say that only people have rights?
In the Preamble, "We the People"
Doesn't say anything about rights there. Nor is it legally binding anyway. We the people refers to who created the Constitution, that's all.
I rest my case. Where in the Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a person and entitled to the same rights as people?
Oh please....that's quite a stretch. The so-called "Strict Constructionists" aren't any more strict constructionist then anyone else, unless it fits their agenda.
The idea that corporations and inanimate objects are entitled to the same rights as people under our Constitution requires a huge stretch of the imagination.
Corporations are made up of people. Thanks for playing.
Doesn't say anything about rights there. Nor is it legally binding anyway. We the people refers to who created the Constitution, that's all.
You need to take a refresher course about english grammar. The most important words in any writing at at the very beginning. After that, the words are supposed to support the first ones.
You are reading backwards.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.
Link here
Umm, what?
He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?
This is ridiculous.
What's your point here? How many times have you heard of folks in Congress calling for hearings on a court decision because they didn't like it?.....hmm....I'll remember all the people who thanked this post when we're talking about any Supreme court decisions they might not like.
What's your point here? How many times have you heard of folks in Congress calling for hearings on a court decision because they didn't like it?
The most important words are not always at the beginning. This is not a grammar issue anyway.
The Preamble has no legal force. It is useful for understanding the Constitution and its purpose, but its words are not law.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
BTW, taking stabs in the dark isn't working out for you. I'm older than you think, and I have a fair amount of expertise in both government and English. Just stick to the topic.
You made my point. "It is useful for understanding the constitution and its purpose". Are not the enumerations words?