Thanks to SCOTUS returning to The Rule of Law as they were written recently,
My little bottle is far too inadequate.
The public meltdowns have been nothing short of EPIC.
Of course the low life scumbags on the Left are taking the recent decisions as an open invitation to protest, burn and threaten outright murder but hey, what is today, Friday?
The same as it was Tuesday and the same it will be a month from Sunday.
The way I’m seeing it though is that these two recent decisions, one nullifying Roe VS Wade finally and the other affirming parts of our very badly damaged Second Amendment are just the beginning.
Left Tards are in a frenzy from coast to coast trying to figure out ways to go around the decision saying that we have an inherent right to carry OUTSIDE of the home and that all these laws that have been passed saying people have to have some super pressing need and then have to prove that need to the satisfaction of those who issue carry permits
are UnConstitutional are making them go back and try to figure out new ways to oppress gun owners.
It’s also making them strike these UnConstitutional laws off the books which is especially delicious to me.
This ruling is also going to have second and third effects.
Then just for shits and grins, Justice Thomas has hinted that he isn’t done with Teh Gays and is seriously considering nullifying some other laws protecting them that he says are also UnConstitutional.
At this point I’ll take everything I can get that sets these Commie Fucks back on their heels and these two rulings have most definitely left a mark that will be felt long after I am dead and don’t give a shit about anything anymore.
Next I would very much like to see these ridiculous Red Flag laws be officially declared as UnConstitutional as they most obviously are just so I can go get a couple of BUCKET FULLS of those delicious Liberal Tears.
I’ve checked several times over the last month, and I cannot find where abortion is a right in the Constitution. I HAVE found it stated plainly that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Now, I’m not a smart man, but it would seem that since the left considers themselves to be better educated than we little people on the right, they sure are too retarded to comprehend plainly written English.
Heh. Oh, they UNDERSTAND it well enough, they merely hate it, as it represents a serious check on their desire to rule over every aspect of our lives.
Yep.
It might have been the right decision but it is terrible reasoning.
Not being enumerated in the constitution is a pretty weak argument. There are a lot of ‘rights’ not mentioned in the constitution. If that’s the standard then there is no constitutional protection to marriage, children, kids, job, travel, etc. All things we take for granted that aren’t mentioned in the constitution.
Think about what could happen if the other side uses that argument. “But it’s not specifically stated in the constitution……….”
How many of those you mention are actual “rights” ? The left believes jobs, education, food, shelter, healthcare are rights. I feel these are privileges one must work for. You did not have a “right” to your wife; you earned her love and trust. No one has a “right” to go to Disneyworld or the beach every year; you have to earn the money and time-off to do these things. As Americans, we often forget the difference between “rights” and “privileges”. The only rights we have are to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else, we have to earn.
Chuck, I also think Responsibility and Duty in all their definitions are sorely lacking in those the espouse “Rights” that are not enumerated or set in the Bill of Rights.
Suppose a state decides to have a one-child policy like China used to have, and your wife gets pregnant for the second time. Since the right to children is not mentioned in the constitution the state would have the power to force her to have the baby (no abortion) and take the child.
Leave the state to avoid the law? Several states are planning laws right now to stop pregnant women from leaving the state to have an abortion. The right to travel is not mentioned in the constitution.
Be careful what you wish for.
“Suppose a state decides to have a one-child policy like China used to have…”
Comparing the CCP to a Constitutional Republic? I respectfully think you need a better analogy.
I was using one policy as a hypothetical, not comparing the relative merits of each system. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.
Through the commerce clause they have.
“Next I would very much like to see these ridiculous Red Flag laws be officially declared as Unconstitutional”
They already have been, just this year.
https://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/sc-red-flag-laws-ruled-unconstitutional/
Of course this ruling is/was not highly publicized because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
…and for those that may wish to purchase a bottle:
https://liberaltears.net/shop/liberal-tears-gun-oil-bacon-scented-4oz/
For the record, I have no interest, financial or otherwise in this company.
It also has a follow-on of not allowing you to face your accusers in court, Due-process, and any ‘fair compensation’ as trade for them.
They are meant as an end-arounds to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Adm., and numerous US Code protections you have to protect your rights, your person, and your legally owned\permissible property.
I remember saying in 2016 if Trump just got in and got 2 SC picks, I’d be happy with it.
Got 3.
“Nostradamus” seems to think that if it’s not in the Constitution, it’s illegal. Lousy logic.
Laws are promulgated constantly, and MOST of the laws Congress passes are, frankly, unconstitutional. The example was used about declaring a second child (in a one-child policy) as legal, since “it’s not in the Constitution”. Oh yeah? “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” doesn’t apply?
Nice try, Nostradamus, your “logic” is in abeyance!
IANAL
Mr. Igor, I think your reading comprehension is in “abeyance.” I didn’t say that nor do I believe that.
According to the majority opinion a state can make just about anything illegal that isn’t explicitly protected by the constitution (like arms, speech, etc)..
Many things we take for granted aren’t ‘explicitly protected’ by the constitution and could be made illegal by a state.
BTW the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is found in the Declaration of Independence. They are not explicitly enumerated rights in the constitution.
Pay attention.
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but isillegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, in legal contemplation, IS AS INOPERATIVE AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED.“ – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256
Those citations are all excellent points that don’t contradict what I’m saying in any way, shape or form.
Who decides what’s CONSTITUTIONAL? The Supreme Court.
This Supreme Court just ruled that it is NOT unconstitutional for a state to pass a law prohibiting anything that is not explicitly protected by the constitution.
There are very few rights explicitly protected by the constitution.
The reasoning behind this ruling should be troubling to any true conservative. Why? Because it becomes precedent.
10th Amendment Jack.
This is why it becomes critical who gets elected in your city, county and state.
Washington state is a perfect example.
It’s been run by Commie sympathizers for 30 years and it shows.
Rowe VS Wade should never have been implemented in the first place as it should have been a state issue and not a Federal issue.
Damned if I know why you are so butthurt about it and damned if I care.
I have way too much on my plate as it is.
You have made your point repeatedly now quit flogging the expired equine.
I’m not butthurt. Although I think a dead equine may have more synapses firing.
Don’t get me wrong I really enjoy the blog and the banter.
You use terms like ‘cognitive dissonance’ and ‘confirmation bias’ without a hint of irony or an ounce of self reflection.
Y’all are a hoot!
Glad you enjoy the show.
Let me put this in a way that might allow you to understand why I am happy about the two recent decisions.
Anytime the government is told to get it’s nose out of our business is a good thing in my opinion.
I left you a gift of our effeminate Nostradamus of approving and responding to it, or spamming the faeces out of zim.
Hey Nots, have you heard the joke about the grease monkey santa and the male nurse’s aide who started a blog pandering to the left tail of the bell curve with conspiracy, racism and misogyny. Their readers actually think they are smart. Dunning Kruger is alive and well.:)
Hey dumbass, speaking of being smart, thanks for leaving me your email address.
🖕😂