The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Oh dear, I love it when **********s pretend they are constitutional scholars while citing wikipedia.

 

Silly **********. No constitutional scholar agrees with you, and more importantly the Supreme Court doesn't.

I love this hermeneutic, though: arms = machineguns not yet invented, but general welfare doesn't include helping poor kids not starve.

Bizarre.

Keep flailing around and amusing us.

 

I'm not sure about that at all. Same motifs and fetishes.

 

That is right, starving kids, "not yet invented" also - ROTFL.

 

You're so clueless. I have a BS in Justice from Arizona State, I know the US Const fairly well. As for **********, that is hilarious, I have never been called that.

Since **********s are extremist conservatives/Republicans, you have to have a conservative basis to be possibly a sort of ********** or Libertarian. These are often interchangeable, don't think so, look at Ron Paul, on eday he's a Repub, the next a Libertarian.

So the point is, I disagree with all those ideals, I am a liberal socialist type. I am pro-guns, but other than that I am HUGE pro taxation, it forces businesses to reinvest, pro gay rights, pro abortion, etc. So you are just not on teh same planet of you think I share anything other than gun rts with Tea Baggs, go do some rereading.

 

How about that:

- Militia stuff

- well regulated

Are those just noise? I guess if you can revise the writings all is possible. The, "...shall not be infringed" is just a component of the major message. With English, other than trailer English, you cannot omit, pick, chose and revise, so explain howyou term "well-regulated" to be. Tell me how the 2nd is even applicable outside the context of a militia? Don't get me wrong, I am for private gun ownership, I own several, but just because I own guns and want that right doesn't mean I'm willing to revise the Constitution's intent. I love teh Heller rendering, I just think it was illogical how they got there.

 

It is a term of derision childish progressives use for the Tea Party members. Another in the long line of name calling BS.

 

What is the Constitutions intent?

 

Is the freedom of speech even applicable when not talking about religion?
Is freedom from search even applicable without unusual punishment?

Most of the bill of rights protections address several rights in each amendment.