• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who enforces the constitution?

People in other countries aren't entitled to those protections. Plus, he never denied anyone the right to practice whatever religion they choose.

You need to read up on the emoluments clause. It's not what you think. And, you're wrong about habeas corpus too, you know, since those people are actually in this country.
 
You need to read up on the emoluments clause. It's not what you think.

I'm thinking YOU should read the Emolument Clause...lol

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8


And, you're wrong about habeas corpus too, you know, since those people are actually in this country.

President Trump's EO doesn't effect people who are in The United States, legally.
 
Translation: Crimefree was wrong about Trump not building the wall and is now spinning and flailing to pretend he didn't say Trump was not building the wall. :lol:

I'm aware of what trump said there is no doubt about that. calamity has no clue to the questions asked once again proving himself totally unreliable and unable to answer any in-depth question asked. You are standing on stumps now. Your strawman remains a strawman. Get back to what you deliberately avoided. You know as well as I do the Hiliary did bring it up because you have been corrected on it and pointed to her speech.

How can one person be so consistently wrong and not realise it?
 
Am I to assume the founding fathers left us powerless to stop people from being cultured and "brain-washed". The correct word here is indoctrinated which is the desired result of propaganda. To manipulate peoples thoughts and actions.

Are we powerless and must sit and watch our rights going down the toilet?

I think there are more of 'us' ("conservatives") than 'them' (progressives), but too many of us are busy working, raising families, and volunteering in the community and we have been weakened by the constant onslaught of political accusations and propaganda launched against us. Even here at DP, as well as most good message boards, moderators are chosen for their ideology as much as for their temperament or people skills necessary for the job. Too many demand diversity of ideology on the Supreme Court as judicial temperament and judgment and respect for the Constitution and law takes a back seat to the person's personal opinions about abortion, welfare, etc. etc. etc. And never mind a person's credentials, experience, or skill sets, but if there isn't a proper mix of white, black, and brown on the commission or committee, then it will be condemned as racist.

The PC creep is slowly infiltrating and imposing its power on almost every aspect of American life. I honestly think we are the last generation that will have the numbers to stop it, and I fear too many lack the courage to make it happen. Unless we do, then from now on, short of bloody revolution, we will be powerless to protect or even speak up for our rights.
 
I think there are more of 'us' ("conservatives") than 'them' (progressives), but too many of us are busy working, raising families, and volunteering in the community and we have been weakened by the constant onslaught of political accusations and propaganda launched against us. Even here at DP, as well as most good message boards, moderators are chosen for their ideology as much as for their temperament or people skills necessary for the job. Too many demand diversity of ideology on the Supreme Court as judicial temperament and judgment and respect for the Constitution and law takes a back seat to the person's personal opinions about abortion, welfare, etc. etc. etc. And never mind a person's credentials, experience, or skill sets, but if there isn't a proper mix of white, black, and brown on the commission or committee, then it will be condemned as racist.

The PC creep is slowly infiltrating and imposing its power on almost every aspect of American life. I honestly think we are the last generation that will have the numbers to stop it, and I fear too many lack the courage to make it happen. Unless we do, then from now on, short of bloody revolution, we will be powerless to protect or even speak up for our rights.

:lamo
 
Americans with guns intentionally kill more people than alcohol, cars, illegal immigrants and Muslims do combined. In fact, rare is a murder or intentional suicide by alcohol or even by car. Although, I guess you could spin that alcohol mixed with a car that results in a death is intentional...but that would be a far cry from pulling a trigger and blowing out someone's brains.

Of course you are ruling out alcohol related suicides, violent crime including firearms, child abuse, spousal abuse and date rape/rape. Alcohol actually alters the grey matter and causes people to harm others. Firearms are no more dangerous than cars or alcohol in the right hands and used responsibly. But we discussing your use of Trump logic. Do you disagree that there is a lot of proof that illegal aliens and Muslims are dangerous? Come on, embrace your inner Trump.
 
I think there are more of 'us' ("conservatives") than 'them' (progressives), but too many of us are busy working, raising families, and volunteering in the community and we have been weakened by the constant onslaught of political accusations and propaganda launched against us. Even here at DP, as well as most good message boards, moderators are chosen for their ideology as much as for their temperament or people skills necessary for the job. Too many demand diversity of ideology on the Supreme Court as judicial temperament and judgment and respect for the Constitution and law takes a back seat to the person's personal opinions about abortion, welfare, etc. etc. etc. And never mind a person's credentials, experience, or skill sets, but if there isn't a proper mix of white, black, and brown on the commission or committee, then it will be condemned as racist.

The PC creep is slowly infiltrating and imposing its power on almost every aspect of American life. I honestly think we are the last generation that will have the numbers to stop it, and I fear too many lack the courage to make it happen. Unless we do, then from now on, short of bloody revolution, we will be powerless to protect or even speak up for our rights.

I suppose if we look at it from the world is doomed point of view we can find ten thousand excuses. If we were smart then some analysis and strategy might make things look a lot more doable and not so daunting.

It is not possible to fight on all fronts at once so it is obvious the critical path must be identified. Firearms are the key to holding government in check. Without firearm government has nothing to fear from citizens. They might get angry and demonstrate but that can be crushed with force. This puts retention of arms right at the front, nothing new the founders told us the same.

How does one win that fight for recognition of the one right we cannot do without? It's focused, citizens are used to arms and the only real fight is to convince citizens that gun control is not here for public safety, in fact the opposite. That following gun control means giving up your right to safety and security for yourself and family.

As gun control already knows and demonstrates citizens safety is a huge lever that many will not ignore because they are to busy.

It needs dedicated people who understand what is needed and are willing to make a public impact to spread the truth about gun control.

Why will it work? Only a government with suicide in mind makes laws that are hugely unpopular and not supported by citizens. Aware citizens who appreciate and value their rights are far less likely to be to busy to protect them

It is the only way we can enforce the constitution. The founders hoped we might see that as a duty.
 
Of course you are ruling out alcohol related suicides, violent crime including firearms, child abuse, spousal abuse and date rape/rape. Alcohol actually alters the grey matter and causes people to harm others. Firearms are no more dangerous than cars or alcohol in the right hands and used responsibly. But we discussing your use of Trump logic. Do you disagree that there is a lot of proof that illegal aliens and Muslims are dangerous? Come on, embrace your inner Trump.

Do you support current laws which charge people who are armed and drunk or on drugs with a crime? Eg.
2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974 .

Just curious to see if there is any consistency in your rant.
 
Do you support current laws which charge people who are armed and drunk or on drugs with a crime? Eg.

Define drunk and describe what crime they are committing. I would think the crime was the important fact.

So do you support surgeons who operate drunk?

Just curious to see if there is any consistency in your rant.

Is there any consistency to yours comparing guns which cannot commit a crime with people who knowingly have illegally entered the country.

Seems a bit daft to me.
 
Define drunk and describe what crime they are committing. I would think the crime was the important fact.
Most states define it at 0.08%. You should know that.

So do you support surgeons who operate drunk?
No more than I would support someone shooting a gun while drunk. :roll:



Is there any consistency to yours comparing guns which cannot commit a crime with people who knowingly have illegally entered the country.

Seems a bit daft to me.
I have nothing against guns, just gun nuts.
 
Most states define it at 0.08%. You should know that.

You mean for driving? You never mentioned that

No more than I would support someone shooting a gun while drunk. :roll:

You never mentioned that did you so your response is completely idiotic. :doh

I have nothing against guns, just gun nuts.

I assume that includes yourself, that much is obvious.

Do tell what makes you special?
 
Do you support current laws which charge people who are armed and drunk or on drugs with a crime? Eg.


Just curious to see if there is any consistency in your rant.

Pretty goofy question. Why would anyone not agree?

Do you disagree that there is alot of proof showing illegal immigrants and Muslims are dangerous? Just curious to see if there is any consistancy in your rant which lead to this line of questioning and your concern for rights and freedoms.

Hint: Sure there is when framed as you did firearms. However, unlike you, I realize it is irrelevant when viewing the vast majority of Muslims, illegal immigrants, refugees or gun owners. Your form of logic is repugnant when applying the acts of an incredibly small minority to a very large majority.
 
Pretty goofy question. Why would anyone not agree?
Not really. Several gunners have argued that any law criminalizing the use of firearms due to disability is unconstitutional.

Do you disagree that there is alot of proof showing illegal immigrants and Muslims are dangerous? Just curious to see if there is any consistancy in your rant which lead to this line of questioning and your concern for rights and freedoms.
Considering the numbers of Muslims and illegal immigrant Mexicans in this country, there is not a lot of prood showing illegals and Muslims are dangerous. I guess they are like the shark attack at the beach. One person gets bit, and suddenly no one wants to go into the ocean.

Hint: Sure there is when framed as you did firearms. However, unlike you, I realize it is irrelevant when viewing the vast majority of Muslims, illegal immigrants, refugees or gun owners. Your form of logic is repugnant when applying the acts of an incredibly small minority to a very large majority.

Fear of immigrants, including illegals and Muslim refugees, is irrational.
 
You mean for driving? You never mentioned that
I should not have to point out that what is defined as too drunk to drive defines intoxication.

But, hey...

You can always try it and report back to us how that works out.
 
I should not have to point out that what is defined as too drunk to drive defines intoxication.

0.8 doesn't mean that everyone who tests to that level is intoxicated, only that the arbitrary limit set by government has been met.
 
Last edited:
Not really. Several gunners have argued that any law criminalizing the use of firearms due to disability is unconstitutional.


Considering the numbers of Muslims and illegal immigrant Mexicans in this country, there is not a lot of prood showing illegals and Muslims are dangerous. I guess they are like the shark attack at the beach. One person gets bit, and suddenly no one wants to go into the ocean.



Fear of immigrants, including illegals and Muslim refugees, is irrational.

Just as irrational as basing ones fear of millions of firearms owners on the actions of a fraction of 1%....
 
The courts may only police the laws government makes. The courts cannot police the constitution.

As you use it here, I'm not sure "police" is the right word. I would say "approve" or "oversee" or perhaps "enforce."
 
But the unscrupulous have learned to use the courts effectively for their unscrupulousness (is that a word?) When federal laws in 1964 and further expanded in 1976 allowed those suing in civil rights cases to collect lawyer fees and some other expenses, the ACLU was scouring the countryside to find somebody with standing who would say that a historical cross on a government shield or a religious piece of art was offensive to them so they could sue. It became extremely lucrative for them. And now with a hugely leftist court system in place, it is almost impossible for common sense to prevail in almost any social issue.

So it is entities like the 9th Circuit et al who work hand in hand with the opportunistic leftists to dismantle anything traditional or seen as non-'progressive' and thereby slowly are making progressivism the law of the land.

I see your points, but couldn't the very same thing said about the "rightists"?

I'm in favor of using the courts to correct errors in the legislative effort, but unfortunately it takes a lot of money.

As an example, when each person signs a credit card agreement, he signs away his right to sue the company for malfeasance. Instead, he must go through an arbitration process that heavily favors the issuer of the card, and works against the individual. Yes, it is the law, but we must ask how it became the law. Did, for example, the lobbying by the US Chamber of Commerce have anything to do with how the law came into existence? Should anybody try to work within the system to correct the error?
 
I suppose if we look at it from the world is doomed point of view we can find ten thousand excuses. If we were smart then some analysis and strategy might make things look a lot more doable and not so daunting.

It is not possible to fight on all fronts at once so it is obvious the critical path must be identified. Firearms are the key to holding government in check. Without firearm government has nothing to fear from citizens. They might get angry and demonstrate but that can be crushed with force. This puts retention of arms right at the front, nothing new the founders told us the same.

How does one win that fight for recognition of the one right we cannot do without? It's focused, citizens are used to arms and the only real fight is to convince citizens that gun control is not here for public safety, in fact the opposite. That following gun control means giving up your right to safety and security for yourself and family.

As gun control already knows and demonstrates citizens safety is a huge lever that many will not ignore because they are to busy.

It needs dedicated people who understand what is needed and are willing to make a public impact to spread the truth about gun control.

Why will it work? Only a government with suicide in mind makes laws that are hugely unpopular and not supported by citizens. Aware citizens who appreciate and value their rights are far less likely to be to busy to protect them

It is the only way we can enforce the constitution. The founders hoped we might see that as a duty.

I think we need to be focused on a lot more than gun control because if we put all our attention there, we will lose everything else and there won't be anything left to defend. To me, the key is the courts. If we get that right we won't have to worry about our Second Amendment rights.
 
I see your points, but couldn't the very same thing said about the "rightists"?

I'm in favor of using the courts to correct errors in the legislative effort, but unfortunately it takes a lot of money.

As an example, when each person signs a credit card agreement, he signs away his right to sue the company for malfeasance. Instead, he must go through an arbitration process that heavily favors the issuer of the card, and works against the individual. Yes, it is the law, but we must ask how it became the law. Did, for example, the lobbying by the US Chamber of Commerce have anything to do with how the law came into existence? Should anybody try to work within the system to correct the error?

I don't know how credit card rules came about as I have never ever had a problem with any credit card we have ever owned. But nobody is required to use a credit card. And in a free market system, anybody who doesn't like the existing rules can start their own credit card company with any rules they want so long as they comply with state usary rules, etc. I know of no unalienable or constitutional right to own a credit card.

But to address your opening comment, no I don't think those on the right want the court to make laws that suit them. They want their elected representatives at the local, state, and federal level to make laws that suit them, and they want the court to rule on the Constitution and other law as it was intended and not as the judge wants it to be.
 
I don't know how credit card rules came about as I have never ever had a problem with any credit card we have ever owned. But nobody is required to use a credit card. And in a free market system, anybody who doesn't like the existing rules can start their own credit card company with any rules they want so long as they comply with state usary rules, etc. I know of no unalienable or constitutional right to own a credit card.

But to address your opening comment, no I don't think those on the right want the court to make laws that suit them. They want their elected representatives at the local, state, and federal level to make laws that suit them, and they want the court to rule on the Constitution and other law as it was intended and not as the judge wants it to be.

My bet is that the lobbyists representing special interests "on the right" are far more numerous, sophisticated, well-heeled and influential than any group of lobbyists "on the left".

If you want to read an excellent book about corporate (right) control of the legislative and rule-making process, read "The Fine Print" by David Cay Johnston.
 
My bet is that the lobbyists representing special interests "on the right" are far more numerous, sophisticated, well-heeled and influential than any group of lobbyists "on the left".

If you want to read an excellent book about corporate (right) control of the legislative and rule-making process, read "The Fine Print" by David Cay Johnston.

Feel free to post data that supports your claims.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php
 
I should not have to point out that what is defined as too drunk to drive defines intoxication..

I should not have to mention there is no law against intoxication and if you had read and comprehended my post you would have got that.

But, hey...

Anyone with an ideological blindness......

You can always try it and report back to us how that works out

I've been waiting for you to do that with your idiotic gun control ideology. In fact I've asked you to show anyone of these stupid oppressive laws which have worked in the entire world and you have failed to give a single one. Even if you could find one which is impossible the statistical significance would be negligible. Yet here you are still pounding known lies. Perhaps you can explain what kind of person does that. I'd be interested in your answer
 
Feel free to post data that supports your claims.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

The dollars spent is interesting, but not a true indication of the success or failure of various lobbying efforts over the years.

Just a hunch, but my bet is that lobbyists for companies belonging to, for example, the US Chamber of Commerce, have been far more successful in getting favorable legislation passed than have lobbyists for, say, ACLU or other "liberal" organizations.

Johnston in his several books makes it very clear how legislation written by various corporations has negative effects on society at large.

I'm not sure what the mission statement is for Open Secrets, but Johnston makes a very compelling case. Anybody taking the time to read all the fine print in his credit card agreement will understand what rights he has surrendered for that card.
 
Back
Top Bottom