RIP in peace DMAA, once and for all this time?

[kissdadookie]

did you even watch the video.....?

what does the person speaking have to do with anything when it is quoting the case you STILL can't be bothered to read...? for the 3rd time, IT IS FROM A CASE THAT IS CURRENTLY THE LAW. you are so dense its unbelievable. and you still miss the point entirely. you keep mocking the sentence and then ignore where the LITERAL CASE where that comes from like holy crap I don't know how much I could spoon feed you lol. All that is left is for me to meet you at starbucks and read aloud the case and methods of judicial interpretation and statutory interpretation like a little kids book.

I did watch the video. All nearly 4 minutes of it. Gorsuch was in many ways doing what you're doing in this very thread, to not address what is being discussed and asked, then continue on to obfuscate matters. I'm pretty sure that I don't need to point out the fact that Gorsuch has a tendency to favour state law over federal law which in essence would also suggest that he also does not give much care for the Constitution. Which actually, thanks for posting the video, it really does explain why you are using the arguments you have been using and purposely ignoring what I have went into depth explaining in this thread. I mean, if you are a fan of Gorsuch, it's understandable why you are acting as if all laws in this country is not governed by the Constitution and you wishing to pretend that the two are mutually exclusive (statutes and Constitution).

You've basically proved my point that you and some others simply do not care about context and do not care about what is written there in law and thus just arbitrarily pick and choose bits and pieces whilst ignoring everything else.

[Hyruliangoat]

God the irony of your post. What he and I are quoting is now for Number 4, current federal law/precedent and is a constitutional issue and is an example of a form of interpretation...you once again mock what I said, I literally tell you rhe case where i base what I said from that is the law, I then give you a video pretty much directly quoting the case, and you still try to say that what I am saying is wrong even thogh its just quoting the case that is ONCE AGAIN CURRENT FEDERAL LAW/PRECEDENT

[compan]

Let the record show Hyruliangoat and KDD are still at a standstill and Vaughn still maintains all of his points.

[VaughnTrue]

Let the record show Hyruliangoat and KDD are still at a standstill and Vaughn still maintains all of his points.

[AfroPope]

I would also like the record to show that I'm extremely handsome and my band is very good

[lucia316]

I would like the record to show that I want to be part of the solution. I am not THE Solution. Thank you!

[kissdadookie]

God the irony of your post. What he and I are quoting is now for Number 4, current federal law/precedent and is a constitutional issue and is an example of a form of interpretation...you once again mock what I said, I literally tell you rhe case where i base what I said from that is the law, I then give you a video pretty much directly quoting the case, and you still try to say that what I am saying is wrong even thogh its just quoting the case that is ONCE AGAIN CURRENT FEDERAL LAW/PRECEDENT

Again, what part of what I explained alludes you? Is FEDERAL LAW or ANY LAW in this country subject to follow the Constitution? Yes or no. Simple question.

Inb4 you go off on another tangent.

The answer by the way is: YES. Unless we have a change of government. Period.

[Hyruliangoat]

If we all join hands maybe we can combine our powers and send KDD back to the pits until he is summoned in the next thread

[OT2000]

I am just curious as to who will do the deed, superman, green lantern or Wonder Woman

[El Conquistador]

Hyrulian...Distract him by singing OOH CHILD...Vaughn, take the flank!

[Giant_Killer]

Spot for Sale

Edit: This thread is brought to you by DS Craze.

[kissdadookie]

If we all join hands maybe we can combine our powers and send KDD back to the pits until he is summoned in the next thread

Yes or no. Does all laws in this country subject to the Constitution? The answer is yes.

Trump's Muslim ban, there's plenty of evidence of intent which runs counter to the Constitution. The Constitution DOES NOT GIVE COMPLETE FREE REIGN TO THE PRESIDENT. It is written into the Constitution avenues for which we can essentially give the President the boot if the President's actions violates the Constitution.

You and Gorsuch are essentially trying to pull a fast one by ignoring the fact that the Constitution does not actually allow for the President to take unconstitutional actions. Taking things out of context or completely ignoring the existence of the context does not magically make it disappear just like how there's no magical pink unicorn DMAA plant.

[Hyruliangoat]

Read the article i linked you and the other ones going into each constitutional issue and what articles grant him the ability to do it. If you dont know the "theoretical" answer to it (wherher you agree with it or not) then I dont think youve actually read the constitution. As I said i have no problem discussing that with you but not until you have a basic understanding of whats at play. If you actually understood what Gorsuch and I are saying and if you actualy read the freakin case youd see that those tiers only kick in when hes acting under powrrs granted to him under the constitution which he has. Ive never said it gives free reign.

[Farley1324]

I call wild card

[Synapsin]

I am just curious as to who will do the deed, superman, green lantern or Wonder Woman

dibs