A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

The whole "it's constitutional until it's ruled unconstitutional" just offends me to my core. It is intellectual cowardice, plain and simple. It rationalizes immoral lawmakers pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation that flies in the face of intent and precedent, and creates a situation where a bad law is enacted, and it takes literally decades before the courts will make any kind of adjudication, which means entire generations of Americans denied their basic rights.

To defend that situation as somehow "legitimate" - much less desirable - is nothing short of reprehensible.

 

Once again, the above argument is factually incorrect, as well as devoid of a factual, legitimate basis. It is no different than the baseless claim that the general welfare clause authorizes the federal government to implement whatever regulation and rules it may wish, even if it is not used as a citation justifying such actions. No court has ever held such to be the case.

 

It is simply factual. That is not a dig at anything. It’s just true

 

I of course am not wrong, and you know that.

 

nope. Which is why all laws are constitutional, and enforced until ruled otherwise by the courts.

 

Not only Can you not prove you are right, considering you have lied several times through out the discussions in this forum, nothing you assert can be accepted as true without proof.

 

I have never lied on this forum. And I have proven myself to be right.

 

The claim made by yourself was that the general welfare clause of the united states constitution authorizes the federal government to implement whatever restriction it wishes, on the basis that it benefits the general welfare of the nation. This is a blatant exercise of intellectual dishonesty on the part of yourself.

 

actually it's factually correct.

 

If it is factually correct that the general welfare clause of the united states constitution authorizes the federal government to implement whatever restriction it wishes then should we dig deeper?
Based on the fact in the preamble of the Constitution "insure domestic tranquility" comes before "promote the general welfare" it should be given a higher priority. So when the government has taken care of providing for that domestic tranquility for all then they can come back and discuss using the idea of general welfare to implement restrictions.
There will be no domestic tranquility as long as lunatics are allowed to roam the streets.

 

You have not proven honest. That fact has been noted by several posting here. You have been given the opportunity to vindicate yourself simply by presenting evidence, regarding your full auto assertions that you proved yourself right in that discussion could have been resolved by simply sharing the post numbers where you claimed to have shown the proof of your assertions, but refused to do so claiming (dishonesty) you did and that you had done so many times (a lie) previously and refused to do so again. Regarding this topic, all you had to do was cite in the Constitution or law passages proving your assertion; you haven’t done so, so claiming you are right based on your word is simply another form of dishonesty to any rational person. Saying you haven’t lied is a lie in itself. Prove me wrong, you have two pending challenges of dishonesty just from me alone; resolve them and we will move on, otherwise the allegation of dishonesty stands as fact despite your unsubstantiated objections, and I will continue to point them out when display that behavior, not that I need to because the cast of your caracter is well known.

 

Then why has no court in the united states supported your interpretation?

 

You are only half right.

They were enforcable.

But not Constitutional since they were repealed on that basis.

Laws on segregation of Blacks were passed, they were absolutely Unconstitutional, yet they were Law !

Lyndon B. Johnson had to call out the
National Guard to go in and end Racial Segregation, since the Army could not act on such a matter.

Another example of passing an
Unconstitutional law......

Racial Segregation was Legal and Slavery WAS Legal,
It was however, always Unconstitutional.....

 

You're absolutely correct, laws when passed become enforceable up until which time they be shown in violation of the Constitution, meaning that it was unconstitutional and should not have passed to begin with.

 

of course I have, and you know that.

 

what court has ruled against it?

 

I am entirely right.

 

I said you have not proven honest... an unequivocal statement. And you, respond with ‘I know the opposite, that you have been’... not twisting things a bit, eh? That you have been dishonest, is fact, supported by yourself saying you have proven some of your assertions and when challeged, continue to lie, and not provide evidence you have done what you said you did, so if you did offer such proof, why not share it when challenged? Either you lied, or are a coward, deluded, or a troll...pick one. Until you vindicate yourself, every post you make can be dismissed without reading it as the probability of it having value is nil.
Do you lie and display such dishonest in face to face life, or get some whacko satisfaction of a game online where you can hide behind anonymity of your keyboard and see how many lies you can post; to what purpose? Curious, what is the benefit to you?

 

What court would; it’s meaningless, and void of logic.

 

which you know is not true.

 

Dismissed

 

Then no law currently on the books can be called constitutional because it could eventually be overturned. Either they are all constitutional until overturned or they are all not constitutional. Which is it?

 

huh

?

 

I accept your concession.

 

Correct. No piece of enacted legislation is constitutional until the united state supreme court rules such. That is how the matter of constitutionality works. It is applied by the courts, not by government.