You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
TallestSkil on scored.co
9 days ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
>Laws are written the way they are so that they have legal effect.
Words aren’t magic.
>The legal language of the US has been pretty static for the past 250 years or so.
Then why has it completely inverted from what the Founders wrote? Oh, right; jews say words mean whatever they want them to mean.
>It's been static because it has to be.
Translation: It’s not static; anything someone says magically becomes reality, irrespective of what the words say.
>As long as the courts decide that the laws mean what they mean at the time they were written, they will always be static.
Translation: THE LITERAL OPPOSITE OF WHAT ’STATIC’ MEANS, BECAUSE IT’S PEOPLE SAYING WHATEVER THEY WANT.
>What we could do, if we had sanity at any government level (and we don't) is periodically review the language and update the laws to match the language.
Why? The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago. Words aren’t magic. No one obeys them. That’s the only problem.
>a book that documents the current state of the language in an unambiguous way
Translation: “Make communism illegal.” Then you don’t need the book.
> Then why has it completely inverted from what the Founders wrote?
If you haven't noticed, we're actually moving BACK to the original intention of the laws as written. They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written. But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him so it is working.
If you're wondering how we got so far off the path, it's pretty simple. When things arose that were outside the consideration of the original intention, people had to make things up. They SHOULD'VE amended the constitution, but since they couldn't get the 60% support to do so, they didn't, and just fudged it all up.
We were supposed to have a revolution every 50 years or so BY INTENTION. The Roman System worked that way: For a period of time, laws are binding, as long as people don't get too silly. Once they do, then they appoint a dictator who cracks skulls until law and order is restored, and then the laws go back in effect. We needed that in the US, and the founders intended the PEOPLE to do the skull cracking, but they didn't.
> “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago
No it doesn't, not even close.
The word "shall" is now interpreted as some kind of moral imperative, versus a legal imperative. The word "infringed" doesn't even have the same sense today as it did 250 years ago. Heck, the word "right" is completely inverted as well. Most people think something more like "liberty" or "freedom" when they hear "right", which is not what a right was nor meant to be.
> If you haven't noticed, we're actually moving BACK to the original intention of the laws as written.
I haven’t noticed that, no. Do you have even a single example of it, because nothing in the last 80 years has been anything like that.
>They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written.
He’s not, though. They’re complaining because they’re reading from a script. His performative acts are also in the script. If he was enforcing the laws as written, there would be more deportations than the annual illegal birth rate. The illegal population is still increasing. There aren’t any actual deportations happening.
Why aren’t all the illegal gun laws being annulled by Trump? Why does the Federal Reserve still exist? Why do the FBI and CIA still exist? Why does the DoE still exist when it can literally just be handed off to each respective state DoE and shut down? Don’t get me started on taxes. Why is he still committing extralegal military action? Constitution says none of this can happen without a declaration.
>But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
>No it doesn't, not even close.
It does, yeah. Exact words, exact meaning.
>The word "shall" is now **interpreted**
I don’t give a shit. The word means the same as it always has. Communist “interpretations” are meaningless. By *allowing* someone to say, “I say what the word means now,” you concede the very concept of law. Words either have defined meanings or they don’t exist. That’s what ‘definition’ means.
The problems we have today come from our lack of willingness to literally kill traitors. That’s it. “We were supposed to destroy the system regularly!” “We should have cycled our political structure!” Doesn’t matter. Steady state politics works just fine as long as ***you actually defend it.***
There’s not a damned thing in the Constitution Trump is defending.
> Do you have even a single example of it, because nothing in the last 80 years has been anything like that.
Lots of examples. A good set of examples is President Trump firing people that were supposed to be untouchable. Congress wrote laws creating certain groups that had administrative roles but weren't subject to the president (like the Fed.) Trump fired some of them, they sued saying that they couldn't be fired, Trump's team said that ALL executive power is in the president per the constitution, and the Supreme Court recently held a hearing on the case. If Trump gets his way, then he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
More examples: Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
More examples: Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years and even announced that birthright citizenship was never law and never part of the constitution. He was sued (obviously) and it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
Those of us who care about the constitution recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit -- he's restoring the original intent, and at the same time, he's demonstrating where congress made a fool of themselves for giving the executive too much power rather than tackle the hard issues themselves (and put their seats at risk of losing "elections".) All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
> > But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
> Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
Exactly. Trump is reversing a bunch of really bad decisions by previous courts by bringing challenges to the Supreme Court. This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions. Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison, one of the worst decisions ever.
> I don’t give a shit.
You said, and I quote: "The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago."
I said that it doesn't.
You don't care? Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
> he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
Translation: “anyone who doesn’t worship jews.”
> Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
And when the SCOTUS rules against him? Say, how about he uses the old law that says only gold and silver are money in the United States? You know, that little chestnut called the Constitution?
> Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years
And you believe even his pathetic reported numbers… because? Nothing in the economy or society would lead you to believe they’re actually going away.
>it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
# THEY ARE THE ONES WHO INVENTED THIS HOAX IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAPPENED ONLY 40 YEARS AGO.
Good god, wake the fuck up.
> Those of us who care about the constitution
“Whites only, no federal reserve.” Where’s that in Trump’s messaging?
>recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit
Solidifying jewish rule?
>giving the executive too much power
Shame he’s not using it.
> All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
Well, yeah. He’s part of it and doesn’t bother hiding how they work anymore. That’s one way to expose.
# This isn’t The_Donald. We don’t worship your ZOG emperor here.
> This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions.
You’re just not paying attention at all.
>Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison,
Oh yes, and next the government will arrest the government. And the military will downsize itself because the pentagon keeps failing its audits. That will definitely happen. Oh, and the jews will all convert to Christianity!
>you don’t care?
About your incorrect opinions, yes. Your personal beliefs that don’t align in any way with reality. I don’t care about them. Your feelings got hurt by truth? Good. Be in pain. You’ll never get better otherwise.
> Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
Words aren’t magic.
>The legal language of the US has been pretty static for the past 250 years or so.
Then why has it completely inverted from what the Founders wrote? Oh, right; jews say words mean whatever they want them to mean.
>It's been static because it has to be.
Translation: It’s not static; anything someone says magically becomes reality, irrespective of what the words say.
>As long as the courts decide that the laws mean what they mean at the time they were written, they will always be static.
Translation: THE LITERAL OPPOSITE OF WHAT ’STATIC’ MEANS, BECAUSE IT’S PEOPLE SAYING WHATEVER THEY WANT.
>What we could do, if we had sanity at any government level (and we don't) is periodically review the language and update the laws to match the language.
Why? The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago. Words aren’t magic. No one obeys them. That’s the only problem.
>a book that documents the current state of the language in an unambiguous way
Translation: “Make communism illegal.” Then you don’t need the book.
If you haven't noticed, we're actually moving BACK to the original intention of the laws as written. They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written. But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him so it is working.
If you're wondering how we got so far off the path, it's pretty simple. When things arose that were outside the consideration of the original intention, people had to make things up. They SHOULD'VE amended the constitution, but since they couldn't get the 60% support to do so, they didn't, and just fudged it all up.
We were supposed to have a revolution every 50 years or so BY INTENTION. The Roman System worked that way: For a period of time, laws are binding, as long as people don't get too silly. Once they do, then they appoint a dictator who cracks skulls until law and order is restored, and then the laws go back in effect. We needed that in the US, and the founders intended the PEOPLE to do the skull cracking, but they didn't.
> “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago
No it doesn't, not even close.
The word "shall" is now interpreted as some kind of moral imperative, versus a legal imperative. The word "infringed" doesn't even have the same sense today as it did 250 years ago. Heck, the word "right" is completely inverted as well. Most people think something more like "liberty" or "freedom" when they hear "right", which is not what a right was nor meant to be.
I haven’t noticed that, no. Do you have even a single example of it, because nothing in the last 80 years has been anything like that.
>They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written.
He’s not, though. They’re complaining because they’re reading from a script. His performative acts are also in the script. If he was enforcing the laws as written, there would be more deportations than the annual illegal birth rate. The illegal population is still increasing. There aren’t any actual deportations happening.
Why aren’t all the illegal gun laws being annulled by Trump? Why does the Federal Reserve still exist? Why do the FBI and CIA still exist? Why does the DoE still exist when it can literally just be handed off to each respective state DoE and shut down? Don’t get me started on taxes. Why is he still committing extralegal military action? Constitution says none of this can happen without a declaration.
>But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
>No it doesn't, not even close.
It does, yeah. Exact words, exact meaning.
>The word "shall" is now **interpreted**
I don’t give a shit. The word means the same as it always has. Communist “interpretations” are meaningless. By *allowing* someone to say, “I say what the word means now,” you concede the very concept of law. Words either have defined meanings or they don’t exist. That’s what ‘definition’ means.
The problems we have today come from our lack of willingness to literally kill traitors. That’s it. “We were supposed to destroy the system regularly!” “We should have cycled our political structure!” Doesn’t matter. Steady state politics works just fine as long as ***you actually defend it.***
There’s not a damned thing in the Constitution Trump is defending.
Lots of examples. A good set of examples is President Trump firing people that were supposed to be untouchable. Congress wrote laws creating certain groups that had administrative roles but weren't subject to the president (like the Fed.) Trump fired some of them, they sued saying that they couldn't be fired, Trump's team said that ALL executive power is in the president per the constitution, and the Supreme Court recently held a hearing on the case. If Trump gets his way, then he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
More examples: Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
More examples: Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years and even announced that birthright citizenship was never law and never part of the constitution. He was sued (obviously) and it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
Those of us who care about the constitution recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit -- he's restoring the original intent, and at the same time, he's demonstrating where congress made a fool of themselves for giving the executive too much power rather than tackle the hard issues themselves (and put their seats at risk of losing "elections".) All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
> > But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
> Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
Exactly. Trump is reversing a bunch of really bad decisions by previous courts by bringing challenges to the Supreme Court. This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions. Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison, one of the worst decisions ever.
> I don’t give a shit.
You said, and I quote: "The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago."
I said that it doesn't.
You don't care? Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
Call me when it happens.
> he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
Translation: “anyone who doesn’t worship jews.”
> Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
And when the SCOTUS rules against him? Say, how about he uses the old law that says only gold and silver are money in the United States? You know, that little chestnut called the Constitution?
> Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years
And you believe even his pathetic reported numbers… because? Nothing in the economy or society would lead you to believe they’re actually going away.
>it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
# THEY ARE THE ONES WHO INVENTED THIS HOAX IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAPPENED ONLY 40 YEARS AGO.
Good god, wake the fuck up.
> Those of us who care about the constitution
“Whites only, no federal reserve.” Where’s that in Trump’s messaging?
>recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit
Solidifying jewish rule?
>giving the executive too much power
Shame he’s not using it.
> All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
Well, yeah. He’s part of it and doesn’t bother hiding how they work anymore. That’s one way to expose.
# This isn’t The_Donald. We don’t worship your ZOG emperor here.
> This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions.
You’re just not paying attention at all.
>Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison,
Oh yes, and next the government will arrest the government. And the military will downsize itself because the pentagon keeps failing its audits. That will definitely happen. Oh, and the jews will all convert to Christianity!
>you don’t care?
About your incorrect opinions, yes. Your personal beliefs that don’t align in any way with reality. I don’t care about them. Your feelings got hurt by truth? Good. Be in pain. You’ll never get better otherwise.
> Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
God, the irony.