Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
If anyone obstructed justice, it was Comey's FBI
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Dec 10, 2017 10:21:15   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
Cykdelic wrote:
The sad part is that you progressives really think it’s okay for a court to decide the constitution is a living, changing document to be determined by appointed judges.


I agree with you. However, it is what it is. It would be nice to have the perfect document but not even the bible is that definitive. If it were, we would have only one religion, not the many we do have with different interpretations.

Reply
Dec 10, 2017 18:45:29   #
letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.
 
Frosty wrote:
I agree with you. However, it is what it is. It would be nice to have the perfect document but not even the bible is that definitive. If it were, we would have only one religion, not the many we do have with different interpretations.


Good point, but unlike the Constitution the bible was written in an old lost language that has been translated and rewritten many times.

Reply
Dec 10, 2017 19:45:16   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
letmedance wrote:
Good point, but unlike the Constitution the bible was written in an old lost language that has been translated and rewritten many times.


And the constitution was written in a living, evolving language, that has changed since the constitution was written. The bible, by the way, was written in many languages. Are you really throwing in with the bear these days? Explain why I should believe him over the courts. I guess he may be gods messenger, but I missed the memo.

Reply
 
 
Dec 10, 2017 19:58:40   #
letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.
 
thom w wrote:
And the constitution was written in a living, evolving language, that has changed since the constitution was written. The bible, by the way, was written in many languages. Are you really throwing in with the bear these days? Explain why I should believe him over the courts. I guess he may be gods messenger, but I missed the memo.


I am not throwing in with anyone, just making a sound observation. Our language is changing but it still remains the English Language and unlike the Bible the Constitution was not written thousands of years ago.

Reply
Dec 10, 2017 19:59:59   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
skylane5sp wrote:
Pull your head out of your ass, Thom. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Flynn 'lied' to the FBI about talking on the phone to the Russian Ambassador (which BTW was not anything illegal) and got bent over. What FBI agent conducted that interview?

Mills and Abedin lied to the FBI about an unsecured server containing classified information and NOTHING HAPPENED. What FBI agent conducted those interviews?

When Hillary was interviewed by the FBI regarding her mishandling of classified information (a serious felony) she was NOT PLACED UNDER OATH. What FBI agent conducted that interview?

When Comey crafted his exoneration of Hillary BEFORE any witnesses were even interviewed (Really?) the specific legal term 'Gross Negligence' was changed to the nothing phrase 'extreme carelessness'. What FBI agent made that correction?

FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.
Pull your head out of your ass, Thom. Wake up and ... (show quote)


Mount your Hog and hump it back into the sunset!
It's the same laws for EVERYBODY(last I knew)!
Problem is, you know more than federal prosecutors and FBI agents, so why don't YOU tell us, with proof, why Flynn got bent over and PUTOS is still free to SAVAGE pussies with his tiny baby hands?!?! LoL
SS

Reply
Dec 10, 2017 20:38:27   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
letmedance wrote:
I am not throwing in with anyone, just making a sound observation. Our language is changing but it still remains the English Language and unlike the Bible the Constitution was not written thousands of years ago.


English has changed so much in the last 600 years that Chaucer isn't even readable to most of us, but if you say so.

Reply
Dec 10, 2017 21:26:57   #
letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.
 
thom w wrote:
English has changed so much in the last 600 years that Chaucer isn't even readable to most of us, but if you say so.


The Constitution is less than 300 years old and the language remains readable and understandable today. To compare the changes in one language over the recent pass to a now extinct language thousands of years forgotten is assinine at best.

Reply
 
 
Dec 11, 2017 13:02:14   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
letmedance wrote:
The Constitution is less than 300 years old and the language remains readable and understandable today. To compare the changes in one language over the recent pass to a now extinct language thousands of years forgotten is assinine at best.


They are not the same. Dead languages do not evolve. They do not change. Living languages do evolve. They are ever changing. To me it looks as though you are arguing against yourself.

Reply
Dec 11, 2017 14:54:07   #
letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.
 
thom w wrote:
They are not the same. Dead languages do not evolve. They do not change. Living languages do evolve. They are ever changing. To me it looks as though you are arguing against yourself.


The constitution was not written in dead language and was not translated and rewritten by scores of others, it still exists in the original form it was written. The English language may have changed over the years but the document was clearly written by it's authors and is still readable and understandable by any with a High School education.

Reply
Dec 11, 2017 20:50:44   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
thom w wrote:
And the constitution was written in a living, evolving language, that has changed since the constitution was written. The bible, by the way, was written in many languages. Are you really throwing in with the bear these days? Explain why I should believe him over the courts. I guess he may be gods messenger, but I missed the memo.


The only thing that seems to evolve are your liberal minds that see everything through a kaleidoscope.
Changes to the Constitution are only done through amendments that get added to the end of the document. No part of the document gets changed or rewritten at any time. It is clearly written in plain english. Your contempt for it is the reason for you wanting it to change. And the great divide is why any further amendments are to be made any time soon.

Reply
Dec 12, 2017 11:57:46   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
BigBear wrote:
The only thing that seems to evolve are your liberal minds that see everything through a kaleidoscope.
Changes to the Constitution are only done through amendments that get added to the end of the document. No part of the document gets changed or rewritten at any time. It is clearly written in plain english. Your contempt for it is the reason for you wanting it to change. And the great divide is why any further amendments are to be made any time soon.



If we follow the constitution as you claim, consider the following portions of the constitution's amendments, and explain how police can confiscate vehicles, cell phones, search cell phones, confiscate fishing equipment including boats, hunting guns, any other weapons including knives and hand guns and just about anything during an alleged traffic violation. (Bear in mind that the question of searching cell phones has recently been before the Supreme Court.)


Some will say this is civil confiscation. If so, point out to me where in the constitution the distinction between criminal and civil rights is made.

4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th amendment:

.......nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th amendment:

.....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Repeat: If we follow the constitution as you claim, consider the (above) portions of the constitution's amendments, and explain how police can.......

From the above, it appears to me that there have been changes to the constitution that do not appear in it.......in practice, if not in fact.

Reply
 
 
Dec 12, 2017 12:04:48   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
BigBear wrote:
The only thing that seems to evolve are your liberal minds that see everything through a kaleidoscope.
Changes to the Constitution are only done through amendments that get added to the end of the document. No part of the document gets changed or rewritten at any time. It is clearly written in plain english. Your contempt for it is the reason for you wanting it to change. And the great divide is why any further amendments are to be made any time soon.


I'm not the one using it for toilet paper. Might that be you?

Reply
Dec 12, 2017 12:07:52   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
BigBear wrote:
The only thing that seems to evolve are your liberal minds that see everything through a kaleidoscope.
Changes to the Constitution are only done through amendments that get added to the end of the document. No part of the document gets changed or rewritten at any time. It is clearly written in plain english. Your contempt for it is the reason for you wanting it to change. And the great divide is why any further amendments are to be made any time soon.


Moore wants to dump every amendment since the tenth. That would leave us with slavery (which Moore somehow connects with family values) and with women not being allowed to vote. I'm sure Arch would agree with that. Do you?

Reply
Dec 12, 2017 14:04:32   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Frosty wrote:
If we follow the constitution as you claim, consider the following portions of the constitution's amendments, and explain how police can confiscate vehicles, cell phones, search cell phones, confiscate fishing equipment including boats, hunting guns, any other weapons including knives and hand guns and just about anything during an alleged traffic violation. (Bear in mind that the question of searching cell phones has recently been before the Supreme Court.)


Some will say this is civil confiscation. If so, point out to me where in the constitution the distinction between criminal and civil rights is made.

4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th amendment:

.......nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th amendment:

.....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Repeat: If we follow the constitution as you claim, consider the (above) portions of the constitution's amendments, and explain how police can.......

From the above, it appears to me that there have been changes to the constitution that do not appear in it.......in practice, if not in fact.
If we follow the constitution as you claim, consid... (show quote)


As far as I am concerned, they cannot without a court order and due process.

Reply
Dec 13, 2017 15:54:00   #
Frosty Loc: Minnesota
 
BigBear wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they cannot without a court order and due process.


I agree but that is not the reality.

If you believe that we follow the vaguely written constitution to to letter, what would you say if Congress passed and the President signed a bill that said all rulings of the SCOTUS must be approved by a super majority of congress and signed by the president. Bear(I know you like that word) in mind that Article 3. Sec 3, of the constitution says, in part:

.......In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Note the last part: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The constitution says congress can make regulations for the court, thus congress could pass a regulation like I suggested.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.