Does this mean that they can't win?

[CRBMoA]

A clear understanding of history would indicate that it was mainly about tyranny, and only tangentially about self defense... per the Preamble: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

I would think an I.Q. above room temperature would really be all you need to understand that, and apparently THAT is still asking too much!

 

[bbbass]

I would think an I.Q. above room temperature would really be all you need to understand that, and apparently THAT is still asking too much!

These people are NOT dumb, they are intentionally obtuse!!! Never think that they don't know what they are doing and what they are trying to bring about... the Marxist Utopia!!!

 

[ma96782]

RE : Post #22

Yup....obtuse.

So then.....
Speaking of an example of a "brilliant mind" that Brandon wants to serve as a Federal Judge.

Sen. Kennedy on Asking Biden Nominee Same Question 9 Times: 'That Was Embarrassing'

townhall.com

Aloha, Mark

 

[bionic knees]

well, she can go perform aviated intercourse in a motivating piece of french pastry!

 

[rurallife]

"Notable work
The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech (Stanford Press, 2019)"

Marxist garbage. Regular contributor to HuffPost. Lol, worthless.

 

[red442joe]

B&B was the gun store in North Hollywood.
They went under in 2002.
It took me a minute and some google-fu to find it.
Joe

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[po18guy]

Rrrrrright, if you can't win.....change the rules.

Aloha, Mark

God is huge on freedom. Liberals hate it. Subliminal message there.

 

[2506]

It's the very definition of what I call mental masturbation.

I'd write my very own perfect Constitution that takes into account modern culture and civilization, but somebody already did over 200 years ago.

If it was a perfect document, why has it been amended 27 times?

 

[2506]

You would think a lawyer would know how to construct a law that could not be interpreted so many ways that it could not fail to be be misinterpreted. I can't believe that she passed the bar or that she is able to function as a lawyer.

The Founders only made two mistakes, IMO:

1. That educated people could possibly be this stupid in the future. If I ever invent a time machine I'm going to take AOC back there to show them just how remedial education and voter judgement would be in the future.
   
   
2. That English speaking people could possibly confuse the words "regulate" and "govern" or that they would not understand that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion" or that the word "Man" refers to all people and not just males.

""Man" refers to all people and not just males."You should look into the 3/5 Compromise and the 19th Amendment.

 

[3MTA3]

If it was a perfect document, why has it been amended 27 times?

That's part of it's perfection. It allows for a corrective process (see example below) but note that the core has remained intact for well over 200 years. At it's most fundamental the USSC limits the power of the government and not the people.

That was a very revolutionary concept at the time. Previously government had all the power except what was specifically given the people. The USSC completely reversed that.

""Man" refers to all people and not just males."You should look into the 3/5 Compromise and the 19th Amendment.

Perhaps you should take a close look. It seems to be the most misunderstood part of the Constitution. Many ignorantly think it means that the Founders saw blacks as 3/5ths of a white person. That thought is deliberate misinformation and is used to gaslight and deceive by the left 24x7.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was to prevent slave owning states from being over represented in Congress as well as apportionment of taxes. As I'm sure you are aware the number of seats each state gets on the HoR is based in population. Slaves, regardless of race (and yes, not all were black, and no free blacks were not counted this way) were only counted as 3/5th for the census that determined this.

The other purpose was to limit the apportionment of Federal funds to slave rich states. Those funds were also determined based on population.

So, why count slaves at all? Many of the Founders felt this way. It was very hotly contested by both sides. The reason it's called a compromise is that it was necessary to get those states to join the Union. Without it we would have started with far fewer of the original thirteen states and may not have survived. Perhaps the slaving states would have formed their own country and would still have slavery to this day? I strongly urge you to read about this from non revisionist sources since it clearly bothers you as did I at one point.

Also note that this section of the USSC was abolished by the Fourteenth Amendment, part of that design perfection I mentioned above.

 

[gmerkt]

This subject goes hand in hand with the project the "other side" has got going to re-jigger the US Supreme Court. There is a presidential commission "studying" the issue of Supreme Court "reform." Which seems to be only necessary at certain times. It wasn't seen as necessary, for example, when President Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan.