The Constitution was never Absolute
May 31, 2022 14:55:15 #
Our President's words.
The rights expressed in the Constitution are not Absolute.
What are they then...mere suggestions.
Does POTUS not take an oath to defend the Constitution?
How do you defend a document, the founding document of our nation...if you do not believe it means much? It is just an idea framework that does not really mean what it says.
One of Brandon's most ignorant statements yet.
The rights expressed in the Constitution are not Absolute.
What are they then...mere suggestions.
Does POTUS not take an oath to defend the Constitution?
How do you defend a document, the founding document of our nation...if you do not believe it means much? It is just an idea framework that does not really mean what it says.
One of Brandon's most ignorant statements yet.
May 31, 2022 15:03:10 #
We should support the Constitution as long as it conforms with our personal beliefs...after that we just change the meaning of the words to conform with our personal beliefs?
I don't think that conforms with the oaths that are taken by our governmental and military personnel.
I don't think that conforms with the oaths that are taken by our governmental and military personnel.
May 31, 2022 15:22:03 #
It isn’t absolute . That’s why it can be amended. He told the t***h.
If it were absolute we would will have s***ery allowed wouldn’t we ? And women would not be allowed to v**e .
If it were absolute we would will have s***ery allowed wouldn’t we ? And women would not be allowed to v**e .
May 31, 2022 15:47:43 #
DennyT wrote:
It isn’t absolute . That’s why it can be amended. He told the t***h.
If it were absolute we would will have s***ery allowed wouldn’t we ? And women would not be allowed to v**e .
If it were absolute we would will have s***ery allowed wouldn’t we ? And women would not be allowed to v**e .
Straw man or fallacious argument.
If the document is amended, those words become absolute and part of the Constitution
Without an amendment, the current wording stands and is absolute.
Brandon was not speaking of amending the Constitution...he was say the rights enumerated in the current documant are not absolute. That is a rabbit hole...change the meaning of this, change the meaning of that. Do that enough times and the Constitution is a worthless document with no meaning because it is not absolute.
Amendments change the Constitution and their wording would be absolute...unless you believe what Brandon expresses.
May 31, 2022 15:54:05 #
mwalsh wrote:
Straw man or fallacious argument. br br If the do... (show quote)
So now you’re a mind reader. Or getting you news from social
Media since you don’t even
Know what he said.
No defending him but calling you out
“”” But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell crowd — you can’t tell [yell]* “fire” in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution
“””
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-prevention/
May 31, 2022 18:24:11 #
He has said it more than once...what you are linking is the more nuanced and refined version.
Overall, he appears to believe we can just shange the meaning of the Constitution...a very liberal progressive view.
I believe the words are the words and if we don't like them, we should change the words of the Constitution, not change our percieved interpretation to some nuanced interpretation.
Nice try Mr Lib.
Overall, he appears to believe we can just shange the meaning of the Constitution...a very liberal progressive view.
I believe the words are the words and if we don't like them, we should change the words of the Constitution, not change our percieved interpretation to some nuanced interpretation.
Nice try Mr Lib.
May 31, 2022 18:43:52 #
mwalsh wrote:
He has said it more than once...what you are linking is the more nuanced and refined version.
Overall, he appears to believe we can just shange the meaning of the Constitution...a very liberal progressive view.
I believe the words are the words and if we don't like them, we should change the words of the Constitution, not change our percieved interpretation to some nuanced interpretation.
Nice try Mr Lib.
Overall, he appears to believe we can just shange the meaning of the Constitution...a very liberal progressive view.
I believe the words are the words and if we don't like them, we should change the words of the Constitution, not change our percieved interpretation to some nuanced interpretation.
Nice try Mr Lib.
May 31, 2022 20:56:28 #
If the constitution was absolute. America would have been a foot note to history a 100 years ago.
May 31, 2022 23:31:46 #
mwalsh wrote:
He has said it more than once...what you are linking is the more nuanced and refined version.
Overall, he appears to believe we can just shange the meaning of the Constitution...a very liberal progressive view.
I believe the words are the words and if we don't like them, we should change the words of the Constitution, not change our percieved interpretation to some nuanced interpretation.
Nice try Mr Lib.
Overall, he appears to believe we can just shange the meaning of the Constitution...a very liberal progressive view.
I believe the words are the words and if we don't like them, we should change the words of the Constitution, not change our percieved interpretation to some nuanced interpretation.
Nice try Mr Lib.
Really . If he said it more than once show us those quotes “ in full context “
Not what you “ think” he meant!!!
Jun 1, 2022 00:01:38 #
DennyT wrote:
Really . If he said it more than once show us those quotes “ in full context “
Not what you “ think” he meant!!!
Not what you “ think” he meant!!!
Your link showed him saying it in 2021...he has reiterated the rights are not absolute type rhetoric on 5/25/22 and again on 5/30/22. On one of those dates was also when he made the unt***hful claims that at the time of the Consitution "some people couldn't own weapons (s***es...so not very relevant) and that citizens could not buy cannons. I will assume he actually believed that comment so I will not call him a liar...he is just uninformed as usual. Citizens could buy cannons at the time, was no law against it...just not many did as they were expensive and not generally used around the farm.
Lets Go Brandon.
I am well aware of why one can't debate firarms issues with most liberals...their leader runs around spewing mist***hs. Kinda like his comment that a 9mm pistol is a high powered weapon that will blow the lungs out of you, and nobody needs to own such a powerful weapon. Expressions of utter ignorance like this and ignorant comments about the Constitution not being absolute help get his followers lathered up on pure bs, but they think its true cause their leader said it.
Kinda like the die hard trumpeteers.
Jun 1, 2022 00:10:54 #
mwalsh wrote:
Your link showed him saying it in 2021...he has re... (show quote)
Out up with a with a link to a quote full context . You’re all hat and no cattle
Jun 1, 2022 07:50:09 #
DennyT wrote:
So now you’re a mind reader. Or getting you news f... (show quote)
Technically you are free to yell out fire in a theater this is free speech however there are other laws regarding instigating a panic that are violated in doing so.
Jun 1, 2022 07:54:05 #
chikid68 wrote:
Technically you are free to yell out fire in a theater this is free speech however there are other laws regarding instigating a panic that are violated in doing so.
That's the difference between "freedom" and "right". You have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you do not have the right to do so.
Jun 1, 2022 08:03:22 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
DennyT wrote:
It isn’t absolute . That’s why it can be amended. He told the t***h.
If it were absolute we would will have s***ery allowed wouldn’t we ? And women would not be allowed to v**e .
If it were absolute we would will have s***ery allowed wouldn’t we ? And women would not be allowed to v**e .
Jun 1, 2022 08:04:41 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
mwalsh wrote:
Straw man or fallacious argument. br br If the do... (show quote)
What it isn't supposed to be is a suicide pact.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.