Liberals pretend to care about our Constitution over Kavanaugh, but it's cherry-picked

[calfoxwc]

"oh, our 14th Amendment" "oh, our 5th Amendment" "Our Constitution, our Democracy"

Yet, did they care about our 1st Amendment, when obaMao and his IRS hack did their best to keep conservative groups harrassed?

nope.

Yet, did they care about obaMao/Holder blamed our 2nd Amendment, and ALL American gun owners, for the drug cartel violence in Mexico? and to "prove" it, they GAVE a bunch of guns to the drug cartels? one of which, murdered our Border Agent Brian Terry? They tried to control banks to force (via "Operation Choke Point"...to ruin the gun industry?

Nope.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/10/us-guns-to-mexico-report-feels-like-deja-vu-all-over-again/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a70cf02510-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-a70cf02510-20770865#axzz5T6tz8lmw

No, "fast and furious" STARTED under obamao/holder. The Bush admin DID have a similar program, "Operation Wide Receiver" that also had problems. But ObaMao/Holder ENDED it, and started "fast and furious"...as in, NONE of the weapons they freely let the drug cartels buy from agents inside of Mexico, were tracked.

The only reason, is obaMao/holder wanted to fake evidence against our 2nd Amendment, and all American gun owners. So they ended Bush admin's op, and started their own, so they could secretly control it to slander all gun owners in America, more and more, and try to sway most of America against our 2nd Amendment.

reminds me of "NO LITMUS TESTS" for sotomeyor and ginsburg, etc.

but "OH< HELL YES WE DEMAND LITMUS TESTS OVER KAVANAUGH"...

and they faked evidence against him over their litmus tests, and their desperate desire to own our supreme court.

Now, why would a revolutionary movement to "transform" our FREE U.S.A. want to control our supreme court?

Most Americans now should know the answer. They can't take over our gov permanently, while our Constitution rules.

[Westside Steve]

A lot of hypocrisy about the Constitution. Many of those who insist that it's a living breathing document that should grow and change with the whims of society are positively outraged by the idea that someone might possibly part from precedent in cases such as Roe v Wade.

WSS

[FairHooker11]

ABsolutely brilliant take Steve!

 

[OldBrownsFan]

Roe v Wade was a made up ruling by the Supremes. The constitution does not back up the ruling and many honest pro choice lawyers admit it. Therefore any judge with a history of following the constitution and their rulings are based on the constitution the demonrats see as a threat to their idol of having abortion on demand, for any reason up to the time of birth.

[Westside Steve]

24 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Roe v Wade was a made up ruling by the Supremes. The constitution does not back up the ruling and many honest pro choice lawyers admit it. Therefore any judge with a history of following the constitution and their rulings are based on the constitution the demonrats see as a threat to their idol of having abortion on demand, for any reason up to the time of birth.

Not to mention the fact that part of what it was decided on what is viability and the relevant medical procedures of the day. That was 50 years ago so it shouldn't be surprising that those two issues have changed.

WSS

[OldBrownsFan]

7 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Not to mention the fact that part of what it was decided on what is viability and the relevant medical procedures of the day. That was 50 years ago so it shouldn't be surprising that those two issues have changed.

WSS

I read a good article from a Presbyterian minister years ago. It was right after the Roe v Wade ruling and he agreed with the ruling and even volunteered to work at an abortion clinic. He said at the time he was told a fetus was just a blob of tissue but when he saw the little arms and legs and heads of babies being sucked out he found out that was a lie and he was horrified with what he saw. To his credit he came to the pro life side and has dedicated his life to working for pro life causes.

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Not to mention the fact that part of what it was decided on what is viability and the relevant medical procedures of the day. That was 50 years ago so it shouldn't be surprising that those two issues have changed.

WSS

Wait .... Things change over time? Like... technology changes and our rules relating to that technology should ..... change too? Wow. I never would have thought

[Westside Steve]

22 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Wait .... Things change over time? Like... technology changes and our rules relating to that technology should ..... change too? Wow. I never would have thought

I tend to agree with you even though unless it's glaring I might lean towards stability. Still it's usually the living breathing document guys that get the most upset about possibly overturning Roe.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

I tend to agree with you even though unless it's glaring I might lean towards stability. Still it's usually the living breathing document guys that get the most upset about possibly overturning Roe.

WSS

Well the Constitution and supreme Court cases are two separate things. Both can change over time and should be able to change

[Westside Steve]

8 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Well the Constitution and supreme Court cases are two separate things. Both can change over time and should be able to change

Two different things but it's the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is or what is not constitutional.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

1 minute ago, Westside Steve said:

Two different things but it's the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is or what is not constitutional.

WSS

Sure but deciding something us unconstitutional and modifying the Constitution are different

[Westside Steve]

4 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Sure but deciding something us unconstitutional and modifying the Constitution are different

Could be. I don't know if the Supreme Court can find an amendment to the Constitution actually unconstitutional.

WSS

[TexasAg1969]

8 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Could be. I don't know if the Supreme Court can find an amendment to the Constitution actually unconstitutional.

WSS

Not really. An amendment must go through the constitutional process to actually amend the constitution and thus become a part of it. That's why they say it is living, breathing over time IMO. Remember slavery was constitutional originally as was men only voting, but amendments changed the constitution to reflect society's change.

[calfoxwc]

wrong. The Constitution was corrected to eliminate contradictions in law. Prohibition...etc etc...were contradictions.

[Westside Steve]

7 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Not really. An amendment must go through the constitutional process to actually amend the constitution and thus become a part of it. That's why they say it is living, breathing over time IMO. Remember slavery was constitutional originally as was men only voting, but amendments changed the constitution to reflect society's change.

Not to nitpick but there is a difference between being unconstitutional and not being mentioned in the Constitution. As Uncle John Marshall believed, rightly so, anything not specifically covered in the Constitution is fair game. Yes that's simplifying it a lot but...

WSS