Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

Oh, so is that how you subvert the meaning of the law?

Posted on: June 14, 2018 at 12:30:22 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44901
Member For:
13.32 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
You just chalk it up to "jurisprudence" versus the plain meaning of the actual law?
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