Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,640,534 times
Reputation: 14806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That word is NOT in their Oath of Office. Only "support" and "defend" are. SC Justices have no authority whatsoever to alter the Constitution. Only a Ratified Amendment can do so. For reference, see the 19th and 26th Amendments.
You are very confused.

And AGAIN: no one has said anything about altering anything. Are you really not getting it, or just pretending to not get it?

Supreme Court Duties=Interpret/uphold/enforce etc the Constitution.

The Judicial Oath

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:34 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
You are very confused. [/quotr]No, I am not. I even gave you specific examples of how the Constitution can be altered, the 19th and 26th Amendments. Note how they were NOT altered via the SC.

And AGAIN: no one has said anything about altering anything.
Attempting to alter "shall not be infringed" requires a new Constitutional Amendment, just like the 19th and 26th alter Constitutional voting Rights.

Quote:
Are you really not getting it, or just pretending to not get it?

Supreme Court Duties=Interpret the Constitution.

The Judicial Oath

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
I don't see "interpret" anywhere in there. Because it isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:46 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
The truth is that there ain't no such thing as an assault weapon. As far as I know, there has never been ONE firearms manufacturer to offer a firearm under the rubric of 'assault weapon.' If no assault weapons have ever been made, none have ever existed.


I hope the poster who used that term comes back to contest my post. But they never seem to do that. They post, and bug out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Nope. It was coined by the gun writers if the late 70s. Google "Assault Rifle Magazine Covers" and you will find numerous examples from 35 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackF View Post
Wrong...the term “assault weapons” is not a military term, it was made up by the left and used to scare gun grabbers.

An assault rifle is a term the military uses. It’s a weapon the military uses that has select fire capabilities to switch between semi-auto or fully automatic mode. The AR-15s available to citizens do not have this capability.
you all need a history lesson. the term assault rifle, AKA sturmgewehr, was coined by hitler in 1944;

https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-...-stg44-2361247
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,640,534 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Attempting to alter "shall not be infringed" requires a new Constitutional Amendment, just like the 19th and 26th alter Constitutional voting Rights.

I don't see "interpret" anywhere in there. Because it isn't.
For the 3rd time, no one has said anything about alerting it.

I am sorry you are having such hard time with simple language.

Educate yourself. That's all I can say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:50 AM
 
Location: MS
4,395 posts, read 4,912,795 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
You are very confused.

And AGAIN: no one has said anything about altering anything. Are you really not getting it, or just pretending to not get it?

Supreme Court Duties=Interpret/uphold/enforce etc the Constitution.

The Judicial Oath

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartiallydischarge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Then how did the Supreme Court get Korematsu v. US so wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korema..._United_States

No one has checked the Judicial branch of government via impeachment. At this point everyone thinks judges are appointed for life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Huntsville, AL
2,985 posts, read 1,750,643 times
Reputation: 4405
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you all need a history lesson. the term assault rifle, AKA sturmgewehr, was coined by hitler in 1944;

https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-...-stg44-2361247
You need a reading comprehension lesson.


No one I've seen on this thread denies that "Assault RIFLE" is a valid term that is used by the military.


"Assault WEAPONS" is a term made up by the left to scare followers into becoming gun grabbers. That is the term that is disingenuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 11:53 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
For the 3rd time, no one has said anything about alerting it.
Infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms in any way is altering it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,640,534 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
Then how did the Supreme Court get Korematsu v. US so wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korema..._United_States
They reviewed the case, and interpreted the Constitution and ruled the EO Constitutional. That's how. Whether or not they got it right does not change their duties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,640,534 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That word is NOT in their Oath of Office. Only "support" and "defend" are. SC Justices have no authority whatsoever to alter the Constitution. Only a Ratified Amendment can do so. For reference, see the 19th and 26th Amendments.
You are beyond help
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2018, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,640,534 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms in any way is altering it.
I only tried to explain you what the duties of the SC are. Didn't say anything about the 2A. You are stuck in a loop. Take a break.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top