Congratulations to the new Miss Universe! Uh, I mean Judge Gorsuch, the nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. And better luck next time to the first runner up. Wait, I mean Judge Hardiman. According to CNN, the White House staged a bizarre production
'the people"...correct...at the end of your above post you said "people"...not the same---see...i can be just as obtuse as you...annoying, no?....now, hush baby, daddy gotta change your di-dee and warm up your ba-ba...and here, something to read for you to go sleepy-time, and drift off to the hypnotic efx of reconciling the concepts of 'original intent' and 'context of the time'....ni-night!
Only if you omit the words before and only then. I shouldn't have even said acrobatic, but plain negative hallucination. Your own precious amendment is a CHANGE to the original Constitution. Jesus!
What's happening in Berkeley is a lot of peaceful students demonstrating -- against a vile racist Internet troll who has no more business speaking at this liberal, racially diverse university than a pro-choice ganja activist would have speaking at a Baptist megachurch -- and a few outliers doing some stupid, destructive shit that I guarantee no reasonable liberal approves of. You seem like a somewhat intelligent person. You have a good vocabulary and a decent grasp of grammar. Since you've bothered to come to Wonkette and spend time here, maybe you can lay down your hate and rhetoric for a while to consider that the radical extremist leftist fringe is just that: Radical, and a fringe. Liberals as a whole are actually pretty nice, normal, reponsible people who simply want everyone in this country to be able to coexist in relative peace, without being nasty to one another. We want to make sure the Earth doesn't melt. We want consenting adults to be able to marry whomever they want without being attacked. We want women who for whatever reason aren't ready for the lifetime commitment of mothering another human being to have the option of not doing that. This is the last time I am going to engage with you on this level. If you decide to retort with some more nasty attacks, then obviously I've failed. But hopefully maybe you'll get a glimmer of understanding.
If you understood how to read English, you would understand that the first clause in the Second Amendment in no way limits the second, but if that's your problem I can't help you.
And seriously, how is it so many liberals don't understand that amendments are part of the Constitution? No one who subscribes to originalism says "ignore the amendments". That's just another liberal straw man.
"if the founders intended the constitution to be an 'evolving and malleable' document...why did they put in a method to change it"
that is easily the stupidest, and least aware of it's own stupidity, thing i have ever read--and seriously calls into question the old saw 'remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people'
it wasnt an insinuation, you obtuse twit...it was a statement of fact that the Original Members of the supreme court INCLUDED--but was not exaxtly and entirely composed of (the definition and commonly implied meaning of the word 'included') people who wrote the constitution...stop it with the baby talk already
It's only a stupid question to people who don't understand the topic. You see, when people argue that the Constitution is a 'living document' that 'evolves', they're trying to convince people that they can just reinterpret the Constitution to fit their agenda. If the Framers intended that to be the case, there would be NO NEED for a method to actually change it, much less a method that is as difficult as the one they created.
that is the most circular logic bullshit i've ever read...you are literally saying 'putting in a method to change something means you shouldnt change something'...you, sir, are the most self-deluded, dumbest mothafucka alive...now, once and for all, stop with the fucking baby-talk
you are easily and absolutely the most self-confused, over-thinking twit i've ever read, constantly repeating the idiotic circular logic of 'if they devised a method to change something, then that means they didnt want it to be changed'...khaa-rhyst, what an asshole...stop it with the fucking baby-talk, you are an adult and i am embarassed for you
'the people"...correct...at the end of your above post you said "people"...not the same---see...i can be just as obtuse as you...annoying, no?....now, hush baby, daddy gotta change your di-dee and warm up your ba-ba...and here, something to read for you to go sleepy-time, and drift off to the hypnotic efx of reconciling the concepts of 'original intent' and 'context of the time'....ni-night!
http://www.truth-out.org/ne...
Only if you omit the words before and only then. I shouldn't have even said acrobatic, but plain negative hallucination. Your own precious amendment is a CHANGE to the original Constitution. Jesus!
What's happening in Berkeley is a lot of peaceful students demonstrating -- against a vile racist Internet troll who has no more business speaking at this liberal, racially diverse university than a pro-choice ganja activist would have speaking at a Baptist megachurch -- and a few outliers doing some stupid, destructive shit that I guarantee no reasonable liberal approves of. You seem like a somewhat intelligent person. You have a good vocabulary and a decent grasp of grammar. Since you've bothered to come to Wonkette and spend time here, maybe you can lay down your hate and rhetoric for a while to consider that the radical extremist leftist fringe is just that: Radical, and a fringe. Liberals as a whole are actually pretty nice, normal, reponsible people who simply want everyone in this country to be able to coexist in relative peace, without being nasty to one another. We want to make sure the Earth doesn't melt. We want consenting adults to be able to marry whomever they want without being attacked. We want women who for whatever reason aren't ready for the lifetime commitment of mothering another human being to have the option of not doing that. This is the last time I am going to engage with you on this level. If you decide to retort with some more nasty attacks, then obviously I've failed. But hopefully maybe you'll get a glimmer of understanding.
That's what my patent attorney always tells me.
If you understood how to read English, you would understand that the first clause in the Second Amendment in no way limits the second, but if that's your problem I can't help you.
And seriously, how is it so many liberals don't understand that amendments are part of the Constitution? No one who subscribes to originalism says "ignore the amendments". That's just another liberal straw man.
Ah, the person who wrote "SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU FORCED-BIRTH MOTHERFUCKER" lecturing on nasty attacks. That's rich.
But seriously, there must be a LOT of unreasonable liberals because there's been a whole lot of this kind of thing going on since November.
we dont
"if the founders intended the constitution to be an 'evolving and malleable' document...why did they put in a method to change it"
that is easily the stupidest, and least aware of it's own stupidity, thing i have ever read--and seriously calls into question the old saw 'remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people'
19806
it wasnt an insinuation, you obtuse twit...it was a statement of fact that the Original Members of the supreme court INCLUDED--but was not exaxtly and entirely composed of (the definition and commonly implied meaning of the word 'included') people who wrote the constitution...stop it with the baby talk already
'only one' fits under the definition and statement of fact 'included'--ya da-da goo-goo baby talkin fuck
OK, over and out. You're hopeless.
'people' is not the same as 'the people'...baby want a ba-ba and blankee?
It's only a stupid question to people who don't understand the topic. You see, when people argue that the Constitution is a 'living document' that 'evolves', they're trying to convince people that they can just reinterpret the Constitution to fit their agenda. If the Framers intended that to be the case, there would be NO NEED for a method to actually change it, much less a method that is as difficult as the one they created.
that is the most circular logic bullshit i've ever read...you are literally saying 'putting in a method to change something means you shouldnt change something'...you, sir, are the most self-deluded, dumbest mothafucka alive...now, once and for all, stop with the fucking baby-talk
you are easily and absolutely the most self-confused, over-thinking twit i've ever read, constantly repeating the idiotic circular logic of 'if they devised a method to change something, then that means they didnt want it to be changed'...khaa-rhyst, what an asshole...stop it with the fucking baby-talk, you are an adult and i am embarassed for you