4th of July DUI Checkpoint Video

[JNieman]

Just b/c 9 people in black robes, who can't agree on anything say it's Constitutional, doesn't make it Constitutional, moral, or the way a free society should be.

Uhm.

Yes.

Yes, they do.

Like the very definition and context of things, yes, 100% that is exactly that makes things constitutional or unconstitutional.

There's not even a defense you could possibly make against this.

You're just... wrong.

 

[JR1572]

Uhm.

Yes.

Yes, they do.

Like the very definition and context of things, yes, 100% that is exactly that makes things constitutional or unconstitutional.

There's not even a defense you could possibly make against this.

You're just... wrong.

Yep.

JR1572

 

[SVT]

I usually don't respond to posts like this, but the bolded part on this one just needs a response. If the Supreme Court is not there to rule over constitutionality, then what would you say these nine people in black robes are there for?

I'm not saying their purpose isn't to rule on Constitutional matters.

I'm saying they are human, fallible, sometimes misguided and biased. Their rulings may make the "law of the land" "constitutional", but those very same laws may still truly be, per the constitution, unconstitutional.

And obamacare is a perfect example of this. A law can be both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.

 

[SVT]

Uhm.

Yes.

Yes, they do.

Like the very definition and context of things, yes, 100% that is exactly that makes things constitutional or unconstitutional.

There's not even a defense you could possibly make against this.

You're just... wrong.

If the scotus ruled that States could make laws preventing anyone to own a gun, would that ruling be constitutional?

Yes and no. Yes it's "constitutional" but only bc of the courts authority, not bc it's actually in line with the constitution. And if its not actually in line with the constitution, then it's unconstitutional.

 

[troy_mclure]

hit a dui check point a earlier this year in ms(outside hattisburg(?) around 3am.
cop walks up as i turn on my dome light, and roll down my windows.
me: im carring a concealed weapon with permit.
leo: uhhhhh,-long pause- uhhhhh, -long pause- where is it?
me: in my right butt pocket.
leo: uhhhhhh. where is your permit and license?
me: my left butt pocket.
leo: can you take it out?
me: which one?
leo: uhhhhhh, the permit and license.

hand the license and permit to leo, he walks to the group of leos and starts waving his arms around like a Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flaling Tube Man.

after 7 mins of discussion he finally comes back and hands me the license without a word, and walks away.

after sitting for a minute or so i pull out real slow and leave.

 

[Jack]

Uhm.

Yes.

Yes, they do.

Like the very definition and context of things, yes, 100% that is exactly that makes things constitutional or unconstitutional.

There's not even a defense you could possibly make against this.

You're just... wrong.

A pattern is forming...

Between this and arguing about the 4th without knowing what the ammendment says, I'm curious as to if you read the 4th and interpreted it as this or decided what you wanted and then tried to twist words until it fit.

 

[Leadfoot]

Is this turd still floating? Geez..

 

[geoney]

I'm not saying their purpose isn't to rule on Constitutional matters.

I'm saying they are human, fallible, sometimes misguided and biased. Their rulings may make the "law of the land" "constitutional", but those very same laws may still truly be, per the constitution, unconstitutional.

And obamacare is a perfect example of this. A law can be both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.

You do realize it was mostly humans who wrote the Constitution in the first place right?

 

[SVT]

You do realize it was mostly humans who wrote the Constitution in the first place right?

Mostly humans

 

[SVT]

Uhm.

Yes.

Yes, they do.

Like the very definition and context of things, yes, 100% that is exactly that makes things constitutional or unconstitutional.

There's not even a defense you could possibly make against this.

You're just... wrong.

If the scotus ruled that States could make laws preventing anyone to own a gun, would that ruling be constitutional?

Yes and no. Yes it's "constitutional" but only bc of the courts "authority", not bc it's actually in line with the constitution. And if its not actually in line with the constitution, then it's unconstitutional.

JNieman? Do my comments above make sense?