Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/20/08 01:41 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

Aren't they supposed to make a ruling on the case this month?

Yes.

And it's ironically expected to fail. The complete handgun ban that is. Not the restrictions for owning firearms such as a background check.

Oye, Memorize!

I hadn't understood what you were trying to say in response to my post. Could you explain a little bit?

Sorry.

;

At 6/20/08 11:35 AM, reviewer-general wrote:

I hadn't understood what you were trying to say in response to my post. Could you explain a little bit?

Sorry.

If the founding fathers did what we would consider Unconstitutional based upon soley the Constitution, then we can not, today, deem it 'unconstitutional'.

For example: Right to Bare Arms.

We then can not then say that simply owning a handgun is Unconstitutional.

Or that in our Constitution, we give everyone due process of law. But since the very people who wrote that did not apply it to enemy combatants at war during their time, our courts today can not declare it "Unconstitutional" by the Constitution that the Founding Fathers wrote, unless we created a new law ratified by at least 3/4 of the states.

At 6/20/08 04:04 PM, Memorize wrote: Or that in our Constitution, we give everyone due process of law.

I'm sure the Geneva Conventions have something to say about it.

And don't give me this shit that they are "unlawful combatants"; we are supposedly fighting a WAR on Terrorism. So, by extension, that makes them soldiers like anyone else. We can't have it both ways.

;

At 6/20/08 07:19 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

I'm sure the Geneva Conventions have something to say about it.

Except that it's rendered useless in our current situation as our enemy violates every rule and law regarding warfare by the convention.

They actively fight in civilian zones.
They specifically target civilians.
They do not wear a uniform.
They torture prisoners; both soldier and civilian.

And don't give me this shit that they are "unlawful combatants"; we are supposedly fighting a WAR on Terrorism. So, by extension, that makes them soldiers like anyone else. We can't have it both ways.

War on Terrorism is simply a fancy name given by politicians.

Could we try to stay on topic?

Courts have no authority over the internal workings of a family. How can a court rule that something that was not against the law is wrong? This just makes no sense.

I cant beleive the courts would even take a case like that.

frankly i think this is a good thing. i think children have been starved of rights for too long. hopefully this will be the first in a movement for child rights. and im well aware that children have some rights, but not some of the more important ones. like, say, FREEDOM OF ****ING SPEECH!, freedom of opinion, right to safety, parents and teachers can do just about anything short of murder or torture. and they dont even have to have a reason. a parent can come home pissed and just start punishing their kid left and right for no reason. in adult society, the government cant just take you off the street randomly and throw you in jail. also, in court, there is a witness protection program. if a child is being abused about 80% of the time they dont say anything because they know if their parents find out theres nothing stoping them from beating/killing them. </rant>

At 6/19/08 07:43 PM, Memorize wrote: I can win in 1 sentence.

You can not declare something unconstitutional when the Founding Fathers who created the Constitution did not, themselves, find it "unconstitutional".

What about slavery?

I won in three words, bitch.

At 6/27/08 03:22 PM, Coherent wrote:
What about slavery?

I won in three words, bitch.

It is so funny how little you know about the constitution.

Public Education at its best

At 6/27/08 03:25 PM, therealsylvos wrote: It is so funny how little you know about the constitution.

Public Education at its best

Haha, conservatives are great. So you're going to make the argument that since the founding fathers did it, that slavery should be constitutional? Because that's the argument Memorize is making with Habeas Corpus.

At 6/27/08 03:35 PM, Coherent wrote:

Haha, conservatives are great. So you're going to make the argument that since the founding fathers did it, that slavery should be constitutional? Because that's the argument Memorize is making with Habeas Corpus.

Step 1) Read it especially (Article 5) - Easy
Step 2) Comprehend it - Hard
Step 3) Apologize - Hardest

At 6/29/08 12:22 AM, therealsylvos wrote: Step 1) Read it especially (Article 5) - Easy
Step 2) Comprehend it - Hard
Step 3) Apologize - Hardest

Hola, I'm back from a vacation in beautiful Orlando, where I had no ability or desire to gain access to an internet connection. However now that I'm back I think the best think to do is point out what's wrong with your argument.

You see, we're not arguing over over the constitutional ammendment process, we're arguing over whether or not everything the founding father did should be considered constitutional. So everything you said in the above post is pretty much irrelevant, and my point still stands.

I'll ask again: are you going to make the argument that since the founding fathers were slave owners, that slavery should be constitutional? Are you going to make the argument that the 13th ammendment never should have existed?

canadian courts are the predator of common sense.

AND THAT IS THE JOKE!

ALLOW TO LINK TO THIS..."WIKIPEDIA" ARTICAL, EXPLAINING IT!

wikipedia.org/gaysex

At 6/27/08 02:30 PM, bloodmage2 wrote: frankly i think this is a good thing

thats because you're a fucking idiot who needs to learn to respect that his parents have authority.

WAH WAH WAH, MY MOMMY AND DADDY PUT A THING IN MY PHONE TO KNOW WHERE I AM! WHAT IF I'M DOING SOMETHING THAT WILL GET ME IN TROUBLE!?!?!?!?

the bill of rights does not apply to children, you'd better be happy as shit your mom and dad treat you as good as they do.

At 7/6/08 03:03 PM, Coherent wrote:

You see, we're not arguing over over the constitutional ammendment process, we're arguing over whether or not everything the founding father did should be considered constitutional. So everything you said in the above post is pretty much irrelevant, and my point still stands.

I'll ask again: are you going to make the argument that since the founding fathers were slave owners, that slavery should be constitutional? Are you going to make the argument that the 13th ammendment never should have existed?

This is so fucking painful.
Do you understand that AT THE TIME it was constitutional? Like every other official action they did?
Which means in the 1860's before the 13th 14th and 15th were ratified, any court declaring it unconstitutional would be completely out of line and WRONG. And since we there has yet to be an amendment regarding this...
You know what? Fuck it, if you really need me to explain anymore then you are clearly being inentionally retarded and we're done.