Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:45
No.6874681

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:45 No.6874681

YES YES YES

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:45
No.6874684

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:45 No.6874684

Replies: >>6874727 >>6876206

>>6874624 (OP)

I wish this would happen just so the court can overthrow the case that allowed unlimited campaign donations from corporations.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:46
No.6874727

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:46 No.6874727

Replies: >>6875910

>>6874684

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission

What fucking bullshit, goddamn conservatives saying that shit is legal.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:48
No.6874761

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:48 No.6874761

Replies: >>6877065

Obama will put in fiercely independent and open minded judges not liberal activists

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:48
No.6874770

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:48 No.6874770

Replies: >>6874876

>>6874624 (OP)
The roads will be paved with gold. 8 karat gold. And underneath? Underneath, it will be lead. Soft, toxic, bendable. Bendable to wims of corruption.

Enjoy your EU-America

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)14:49
No.6874787

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)14:49 No.6874787

Yea that sounds fantastic. 7 liberals on the supreme court, that totally won't be awful and fuck up a lot of shit. Honestly, they should keep it balanced, like it is now.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:52
No.6874876

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:52 No.6874876

Replies: >>6874901 >>6875825

>>6874770

>karat

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)14:52
No.6874901

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)14:52 No.6874901

>>6874876
karat is a word. i shiggy you don't diggy

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:53
No.6874911

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:53 No.6874911

Replies: >>6874929 >>6874972

Say goodbye to the constitution, the liberals can stop pretending they support it.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:54
No.6874929

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:54 No.6874929

Replies: >>6874998 >>6876355 >>6876669

>>6874911

>implying the Constitution isn't a living document whose spirit of the law is more important than the wording

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:54
No.6874933

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:54 No.6874933

>inb4 supreme court bans guns and causes Americas second revolution

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:54
No.6874959

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:54 No.6874959

Oh goody, they'll overturn Heller V. Chicago.

iopq !!E0l3lwK67+/
11/04/12(Sun)14:55
No.6874972

iopq !!E0l3lwK67+/ 11/04/12(Sun)14:55 No.6874972

Replies: >>6875001 >>6875006

>>6874911
the constitution is a shitty document

>mfw the constitution actually allows unlimited taxation

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:56
No.6874993

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:56 No.6874993

File: 1352058976008.jpg-(54 KB, 567x850, Supreme Court nom Liu Goodwin.jpg)

Ginsburg too, but yeah, if only those OP mentioned would retire in the next four years

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:56
No.6874998

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:56 No.6874998

Replies: >>6875023 >>6875024

>>6874929
This is why this country is doomed.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:56
No.6875001

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:56 No.6875001

>>6874972

Don't like it?

Get it amended.

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)14:56
No.6875006

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)14:56 No.6875006

>>6874972
it's implied that it allows that. It's also implied that other branches can stop that shit from going down.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:57
No.6875023

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:57 No.6875023

Replies: >>6875045

File: 1352059040970.jpg-(88 KB, 795x449, 1349565535541.jpg)

>>6874998

So the US shouldn't have an Air Force?

The Constitution allowed the government to create a navy and army, but it didn't say anything about an Air Force.

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)14:57
No.6875024

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)14:57 No.6875024

Replies: >>6875224

>>6874998
are you saying we should stick to the exact wording of the constitution? Good thinking, Thomas.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:58
No.6875045

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:58 No.6875045

Replies: >>6875092 >>6875144 >>6875212 >>6875224

>>6875023

If we don't follow the EXACT wording of the Constitution then it's worthless.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)14:59
No.6875092

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)14:59 No.6875092

Replies: >>6875184 >>6876219

>>6875045

I'm against full-blown activist judges, but the you're retarded. The world has changed a lot since the Constitution was written and the laws need to modernize as well.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:00
No.6875144

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:00 No.6875144

>>6875045

go to bed ron

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)15:02
No.6875184

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)15:02 No.6875184

>>6875092
Exactly. Even in Mculloch v Maryland, John Marshall said that there were things the Framers couldn't possibly understand in the future, so there should always been room for interpretation from the great outlines of the constitution. Or something like that.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:03
No.6875212

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:03 No.6875212

File: 1352059391458.jpg-(61 KB, 413x550, jefferson memorial right (...).jpg)

>>6875045
>If we don't follow the EXACT wording of the Constitution than...
...we would not be following its ACTUAL INTENT

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:03
No.6875224

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:03 No.6875224

Replies: >>6875266

>>6875024
>>6875045
What if... What if... What if we talked about it and all decided to update the exact wording if in fact the exact wording had gotten some unforseen technicalitiy wrong?

Or do we have to make this an all or nothing affair?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:03
No.6875231

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:03 No.6875231

Replies: >>6875239

We 1984 now.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:04
No.6875239

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:04 No.6875239

>>6875231

It's 2012, dipshit.

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)15:04
No.6875266

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)15:04 No.6875266

>>6875224
Then we would have to update the wording of the constitution every 200 years or so. The best thing is a pragmatic approach, and take the wording as best as could be intended for the situation.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:07
No.6875347

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:07 No.6875347

Replies: >>6875441 >>6875607

Original meaning, not original intent.

Basically, what did the words mean in their context at the time they were written instead of trying to figure out what the founders wanted.

Look at what was acceptable and unacceptable in the culture and states at the time. Parallel those things to the issue at hand and make a proper judgement call.

This is how a justice should think.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:08
No.6875371

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:08 No.6875371

Replies: >>6875925 >>6875984 >>6876064

File: 1352059719070.png-(185 KB, 500x627, Gun_Rights.png)

Golden Age is not the right term.

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀
11/04/12(Sun)15:10
No.6875441

▀▄▀▄▀▄ ⓝⓘⓖⓖⓔⓡ ▄▀▄▀▄▀ 11/04/12(Sun)15:10 No.6875441

Replies: >>6875893 >>6876768

>>6875347
that's fucked. The Framers would never support the ACA or medicare, definately not all the social equality we have today. No, we have to adapt to the situation in society. I think pragmatism is the best way, followed by original intent.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:16
No.6875607

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:16 No.6875607

Replies: >>6875644 >>6875870 >>6876912

>>6875347
>[W]hat did the words mean in their context at the time they were written
Okay. Lets try that out.

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>A well REGULATED
This means legislated, laws to control.
>MILITIA
This is what we had instead of a standing army.
>Etc. ...right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
BUT shall be regulated. You want a firearm? Enlist in the U.S. Militia.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:18
No.6875644

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:18 No.6875644

Replies: >>6875787

>>6875607
the militia is regulated not the right to bear arms.

you can't have a militia if the right to bear arms is taken away.

you can't have a regulated militia without guns.

you can't really misconstrue "the right to bear arms"

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:23
No.6875787

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:23 No.6875787

Replies: >>6876813

>>6875644
>the militia is regulated not the right to bear arms.
Where does it say that though?
>you can't have a militia if the right to bear arms is taken away.
False.
>you can't have a regulated militia without guns.
Irrelevant.
>you can't really misconstrue "the right to bear arms"
You just did, so I guess you prove your own point moot.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:25
No.6875825

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:25 No.6875825

Replies: >>6875924

>>6874876
Thought it was spelled carrot.
Are people actually this dumb?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:27
No.6875870

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:27 No.6875870

Replies: >>6876052

>>6875607
>Enlist in the U.S. Militia

Okay

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:28
No.6875893

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:28 No.6875893

Replies: >>6876052

File: 1352060906290.jpg-(2 KB, 125x125, fathappy.jpg)

>>6875441
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Social Equality was a major part of founders intent.
Inherent social inequities fall upon individual with no fault of their own. Just because our government is so corrupt now, Doesn't mean a fair system could not exist.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:28
No.6875910

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:28 No.6875910

Replies: >>6875983 >>6876052

>>6874727

The liberals unions which are essentially no different corporations would have all the power to plunder the wealth of nonunion state workers. That's bullshit. Fuck you.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:29
No.6875924

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:29 No.6875924

File: 1352060969174.jpg-(10 KB, 320x240, possessed.jpg)

>>6875825
B-
You-


YES
YOOOOU ARRRRRE!

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:29
No.6875925

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:29 No.6875925

Replies: >>6876047

>>6875371
What a crock of shit.

Hey guess what the only gun related legislation signed by Obama was?

He signed a bill in 2009 allowing concealed handguns to be carried in national parks.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:29
No.6875929

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:29 No.6875929

Thomas is only 64. He isn't going anywhere.

I also love having him on the bench as I just know that it pisses off liberals that a black man could be so conservative.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:29
No.6875937

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:29 No.6875937

Replies: >>6875967 >>6876034 >>6876047

File: 1352060995475.jpg-(78 KB, 445x972, 1351972739440.jpg)

>MUH GUNS

Fuck off, rednecks. If we lose our guns on the way to a better nation that doesn't get fucked by psychotic fucks like the Dark Knight shooter then it's all for the better.

>BUT MUH GUNS

Fuck off to Africa.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:30
No.6875967

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:30 No.6875967

Replies: >>6876013

>>6875937
>Holms
>not CIA

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:31
No.6875983

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:31 No.6875983

>>6875910
Your realize that unions benefit from Citizens United as well yes? And that by overturning it unions would also lose the power of unlimited political donations? Just making sure that's all clear.

2mur !!f3ELab/iaXM
11/04/12(Sun)15:31
No.6875984

2mur !!f3ELab/iaXM 11/04/12(Sun)15:31 No.6875984

Replies: >>6876006

>>6875371
>muh guns
fuck off redneck

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:32
No.6876006

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:32 No.6876006

>>6875984
>Wants to end up in a totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq
11/04/12(Sun)15:32
No.6876009

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq 11/04/12(Sun)15:32 No.6876009

>>6874624 (OP)

Scalia and Thomas will go to their graves with their gavels in their hand.

Seriously, the most likely judge to retire is Ginsburg.

She is going senile.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:32
No.6876013

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:32 No.6876013

Replies: >>6876040

File: 1352061155081.gif-(704 KB, 200x200, 1351819213755.gif)

>>6875967
>no proof
>faggot

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:32
No.6876027

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:32 No.6876027

>>6874624 (OP)
And then we'll truely see the Constitution die as they'll just pretty much ignore it and say it "implies" every cause leftists want

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:33
No.6876034

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:33 No.6876034

Replies: >>6876059 >>6876087

File: 1352061189606.jpg-(163 KB, 620x662, doomsavile10.jpg)

>>6875937
>MUH GUN CONTROL
>MUH GUN FREE ZONES

Yeah, because that totally worked in Colorado and Milwaukee, both of which are considered gun-free zones.
Fuck off back to North Korea, feel free to get shot by a psychopath or criminal who didn't obtain them legally in the first place whilst no citizen can defend you.

>MUH POLICE
Only kids from the cuburbs think they'll be protected from a gunman by the police, and that they won't abuse their power.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:33
No.6876040

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:33 No.6876040

Replies: >>6876066

>>6876013
>wasn't around for the huge threads and infographics about it
fuck off newfag

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:33
No.6876047

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:33 No.6876047

Replies: >>6876132

>>6875925
The nigger said during thr debates that he was in favor of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban. It's even part of the Democrats' party platform. You can't play that card anymore. Obama's antigun agenda is common knowledge.
>>6875937
>implying the only way to commit a mass murder is with guns
If you want my guns so much, come take them from me.

Antigunners have the emotional maturity of children.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:33
No.6876052

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:33 No.6876052

>>6875870
Yup
>>6875893
People are still actively trying to erase or minimize Paine from from the history books. Many books mention him only as a merely a "pamphleteer"

>>6875910
I can't even tell what you're trying to say. That is bullshit right there.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:33
No.6876059

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:33 No.6876059

>>6876034
*Aurora and Columbine, my bad

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq
11/04/12(Sun)15:34
No.6876064

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq 11/04/12(Sun)15:34 No.6876064

>>6875371

Obviously made by a democratic shill.

Hilarious.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:34
No.6876066

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:34 No.6876066

>>6876040
Post them, faggot.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:34
No.6876067

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:34 No.6876067

Scalia and Thomas aren't going anywhere. Scalia will be on the bench until he dies, because he's that committed to his beliefs (whether you agree with them or not). And whatever Scalia does, Thomas will do five minutes later and not a moment sooner.

Ginsburg is far more likely to retire in the near future than either of them.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:34
No.6876087

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:34 No.6876087

Replies: >>6876155 >>6876195

>>6876034
Yeah because everyone sure defended themselves in that movie theater with their own handguns.

OH WAIT OLOLOL

Fuck off dipshit. You want a society where everyone is carrying guns on them out of fear of one of them snapping. You're just fucking asking for it.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:35
No.6876098

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:35 No.6876098

Replies: >>6876258

>Then the nation will enter a new golden age.

It will be your grave.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:36
No.6876117

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:36 No.6876117

>>6874624 (OP)
>Scalia [...] about to retire

Muh prefatory clause textualism!

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:36
No.6876132

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:36 No.6876132

Replies: >>6876207

>>6876047
>Handguns
>Assault weapons

Spot the difference.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:36
No.6876133

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:36 No.6876133

>Constitution needs to be modernized

I hear this all the time but I never hear solutions.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:36
No.6876141

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:36 No.6876141

>>6874624 (OP)
More like entering the "end game".
Why does OP want white men to lose power?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:36
No.6876155

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:36 No.6876155

>>6876087
That's because the theater BANNED handguns, you fucking faggot.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:38
No.6876195

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:38 No.6876195

>>6876087
>Didn't read the part about Aurora being a gun control zone

Christ, no wonder these shootings happen in libtard areas, you assume that by banning something it won't create a black market and that it'll stop violence instead of opening the door for more death.
Be sure to post a sign outside your home saying it's a gun free zone, I'm sure no armed intruders will enter, and that your neighbor with a handgun is plotting to kill you instead of defending his home.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:38
No.6876206

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:38 No.6876206

Replies: >>6876254 >>6876448

>>6874684

So you want unions and corporations to not benefit from free speech?

Are you suggesting others should be more equal than others?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:38
No.6876207

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:38 No.6876207

Replies: >>6876244 >>6876379 >>6876500

>>6876132
The difference is irrelevant as any gun control is unconstitutional. If leftists get control of the Supreme Court, there will be no more 2nd Amendment. Everyone in the United States will become a slave.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:39
No.6876219

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:39 No.6876219

>>6875092
>but the only reinterpretation will violate the Freedom Rule

<any shift toward greater freedom is always good
<any shift towards less freedom is always bad

Conserva-Chan !!HVj+xx+r2c2
11/04/12(Sun)15:40
No.6876244

Conserva-Chan !!HVj+xx+r2c2 11/04/12(Sun)15:40 No.6876244

Replies: >>6876268

File: 1352061602166.jpg-(72 KB, 1280x720, 1344932243385.jpg)

>>6876207

It must not happen. It cannot be allowed to happen.

Our liberty will be uprooted beyond the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:40
No.6876254

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:40 No.6876254

Replies: >>6876329

>>6876206

Not the guy you're responding to, but I agree with him. No, unions and corporations should not benefit from free speech, at least to the same extent as natural persons. No person should be "more equal" than others, but I'm totally find with natural persons being "more equal" than artificial legal constructs.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:40
No.6876258

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:40 No.6876258

File: 1352061634596.jpg-(67 KB, 445x545, 1351365570162.jpg)

>>6876098

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:40
No.6876268

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:40 No.6876268

>>6876244
Your liberty has already been uprooted, fagasaur.

Guns will be the last thing to go.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:41
No.6876305

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:41 No.6876305

File: 1352061713815.jpg-(12 KB, 330x282, Inigo-montoya.jpg)

>leftists.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:42
No.6876329

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:42 No.6876329

Replies: >>6876407 >>6876451

>>6876254


But both are entities made up of people. You cannot deny this.This is about being able to participate in free speech.

I really think you people are just wrapped up in this cartoonist notion of fat cat CEOs "buying" elections when it is not the case.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:43
No.6876355

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:43 No.6876355

>>6874929

Implying the liberals won't just rip it up, Obama has already circumvented the war powers act. What will he be capable of with court backing? Might aswell just make him his crown now.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:44
No.6876379

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:44 No.6876379

>>6876207
>any gun control is unconstitutional

That's just wrong no matter how you interpret the Second Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. For example, the First Amendment reads in part "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," yet nobody thinks that the government can't *actually* impose certain restrictions on speech, within very constrained limits (e.g. the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example).

Even were the Constitution to indisputably say that the right to bear arms shall not be restricted (and what it actually says is a topic of legitimate debate), reasonable gun control would *still* be constitutionally permissible. This is independent of any personal beliefs about guns – it's basic constitutional law.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:44
No.6876395

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:44 No.6876395

Replies: >>6876424 >>6876439

File: 1352061864051.gif-(941 KB, 300x221, 1351819144176.gif)

Constitutionfags are just as bad as Bible thumpers

>MUH ANCIENT TEXT WRITTEN BY BACKWARDS PEASANTS

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:44
No.6876407

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:44 No.6876407

Replies: >>6876454

>>6876329
No, it's about legal constructs having the same rights to "enable speech in others" as natural persons.

Wider point to the thread: Corporations have been "people" for a long time. The new shitfight is over their right to facilitate speech via donations etc.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:45
No.6876424

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:45 No.6876424

File: 1352061925191.jpg-(29 KB, 252x240, 1345411041596.jpg)

>>6876395

>Founding Fathers were backwards pheasants

Read a book, no seriously, read a book.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:46
No.6876439

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:46 No.6876439

>>6876395
Spot-on flag there, I wonder how many times I've heard libtards say this then evoke their first amendment beliefs.
>Calling others peasants whilst being one

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:46
No.6876448

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:46 No.6876448

Replies: >>6876468 >>6876503 >>6876515

>>6876206
Free speech applies to individuals.

Citizens United rules that unions and corporations are individuals. It granted them fucking personhood. If you're some rich ass millionaire I have absolutely no problem with you stupidly donating your entire fortune to some politician, but abstract bodies with unlimited resources are NOT people and do NOT deserve the same rights as such.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:46
No.6876451

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:46 No.6876451

Replies: >>6876558

>>6876329

That's actually part of why I believe what I do. Saying that corporations don't have the same speech rights as people doesn't actually disenfranchise any person's speech rights. Any corporate speech can be routed through a person instead, because as you say, corporations are made up of people. Allowing corporate speech can drown out individual speech (as we now have ample evidence of), but disallowing corporate speech doesn't actually prevent anybody from speaking.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:46
No.6876454

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:46 No.6876454

Replies: >>6876468

>>6876407

Entities are composed of natural persons.

Keep scraping that barrel.

I'm all for freedom. What about you?

>The new shitfight is over their right to facilitate speech via donations etc.

Think about what you just said.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:47
No.6876468

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:47 No.6876468

>>6876448

See

>>6876454

Unions and corporations are made up of individuals. Are you suggesting they are not?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:48
No.6876496

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:48 No.6876496

America is doomed if this happens. Vote Republican.

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:48
No.6876500

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:48 No.6876500

Replies: >>6876538

>>6876207

>If Democrats take the House and Senate, say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>If Barack Obama gets elected, say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>If Kagan is put on the court, say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>If Sotomayor is put on the court, say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>Government conspiracy in Fast and the Furious! Say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>A shooting in Aurora! Say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>If Barack Obama is re-elected, say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!
>If the Supreme Court becomes liberal, say goodbye to the 2nd amendment!

When will Republicans get it through their thick skulls that Democrats have not cared about gun control in decades? The 2nd amendment will continue to exist, just as it has existed since the god damn Constitution was written. Stop fear-mongering about HURR OBAMA'S COMIN FOR OUR GUNS!!!

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:48
No.6876503

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:48 No.6876503

Replies: >>6876558

>>6876448

>abstract bodies

I don't know what you are so angry about.

Why shouldn't ALL be allowed to participate in free speech?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:48
No.6876515

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:48 No.6876515

Replies: >>6876559 >>6876579

File: 1352062125303.gif-(893 KB, 240x181, 1351981317643.gif)

>>6876448
So let's make it so corporations have to abide by person laws too.

If they violate any of them, then they are arrested and thrown in jail. At that point they are not allowed to function as a company.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:49
No.6876538

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:49 No.6876538

>>6876500

>The 2nd amendment will continue to exist,

There are some liberals who actually think the 2nd Amendment applied to civilian militias and that it applies to hunting rifles and hunting.

They seriously believe this and I am TERRIFIED if they take power.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:49
No.6876558

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:49 No.6876558

Replies: >>6876600

>>6876503

See >>6876451. Restricting corporate speech doesn't prevent ALL from being allowed to speak. It may rebalance how people are heard, but it certainly would not prevent anybody from speaking.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:49
No.6876559

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:49 No.6876559

>>6876515

They already are you fucking idiot.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:50
No.6876579

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:50 No.6876579

Replies: >>6876630

>>6876515

They do. The problem is enforcement, not existence of the laws.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:51
No.6876593

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:51 No.6876593

>>6874624 (OP)
>Then the nation will enter a new golden age.

Unfortunately, the liberal "golden age" looks like Detroit.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:51
No.6876600

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:51 No.6876600

Replies: >>6876624 >>6876679

>>6876558

>It may rebalance how people are heard

And?

How does corporate free speech drown out individual speech?

Is this about "buying" elections? That what this is about?

Also what about unionized free speech? Why so biased against corporations?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:52
No.6876624

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:52 No.6876624

>>6876600

Because muh 1%

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:52
No.6876630

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:52 No.6876630

Replies: >>6876642

>>6876579
typical conservafags getting in the way

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:52
No.6876642

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:52 No.6876642

>>6876630

>implying crony capitalist liberals are not the problem
>implying liberals do not create monopolies

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:53
No.6876669

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:53 No.6876669

>>6874929
You're right it's a living document, as in it has an amendment process to change it. Otherwise it means what it says, and it says what it means.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:53
No.6876679

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:53 No.6876679

Replies: >>6876895

>>6876600

Yes, I do think it drowns out individual speech, and I think after this election cycle there can't really be much debate about that. Just look at all the political ads from organizations where you can't trace the money to see who's really speaking. That seems very harmful to democracy, in my opinion.

And my thoughts apply as much to unions as corporations. Don't assume that all liberals (and I consider myself more of a moderate, by the way) make special exceptions for unions. They should have the same rights and restrictions as any other legal construct.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:55
No.6876728

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:55 No.6876728

>Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy are about to retire.

Hahahahaha, none of them plan on retiring in the next 4 years. If anyone is going, it's Ginsburg.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:56
No.6876768

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:56 No.6876768

>>6875441
You understand that there are people against Medicare and Social Security, right? You understand that our country was founded so that it took at least 3/4 and not 1/2 to (unfortunately) violate the minorities rights?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:58
No.6876813

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:58 No.6876813

>>6875787
>False
>militia, by definition, is not the military
>you are expected to bring your own gun
>you cannot own guns
>but you will magically have one appear if you get your shit invaded and need to join the militia!

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)15:59
No.6876864

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)15:59 No.6876864

Replies: >>6877163

Attention gunfags, Romney has a worse record on gun control than Obama does. So if you're voting Romney to protect your second amendment rights, you've gone full retard.

Obama has actually expanded gun rights, you can now carry in national parks, they were banned before.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:00
No.6876884

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:00 No.6876884

LETS HOPE OBAMA WINS

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:00
No.6876895

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:00 No.6876895

Replies: >>6876958

File: 1352062854264.gif-(17 KB, 163x128, 1331018163778.gif)

>>6876679

Not really. You can have some kid make a youtube video about a candidate and it will be more popular and prevalent than ANY TV ad made by any corporation. Look at Occupy Wall Street. Opinions about it aside, that was a movement made by people without (for the most part) corporate and unionized backing that raised more awareness about the "1%" on its own, which is very impressive.

Money doesn't influence elections as much as you'd like to believe. This is a huge misnomer by many like you (who I can assume is not really a moderate but is saying so to make yourself appear "reasonable") who actively seek to restrict first amendment rights to corporations, unions, and other organizations to exercise free political speech.

Check it out. Money doesn't influence elections because current events because the personal popularity of a candidate does, and no amount of money can prop that up come election time. If your candidate sucks, he will bring in less money because he is unpopular, not because his opponent is outspending him. No one will donate to a candidate that sucks. Unless you enjoy pissing your money away like on Ron Paul.

Look at Obama. In 2008 he was basically golden and raised gobs of money with 1/4 the fundraisers he's going to now because of the EVENTS at the time, like the economic crisis, unpopularity of Bush, Iraq War, etc; those things drove the narrative. It wasn't Obama's CASH that made him popular, it was the fact that he was young, charismatic and not a Republican at the time who ran on Hope and Change in dire times.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:01
No.6876912

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:01 No.6876912

>>6875607
FAIL

Re-read that again.

It doesn't say a well-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms el-retardo. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is simply a statement, not an expression of a right.

It would be like saying: "A currency, necessary to ensure a peaceful efficient marketplace; the Congress shall have to power to create a currency." And then you arguing that only a peaceful, efficient marketplace has the right to create a currency. lol wut?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:03
No.6876958

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:03 No.6876958

Replies: >>6876988 >>6877013

>>6876895

I was very interested in reading your response, which appears to be well-reasoned and thoughtful, until I got to this:
>who I can assume is not really a moderate but is saying so to make yourself appear "reasonable"

I have no idea how you can determine that from the one post of mine you saw. Ad hominem attacks and accusing me of being disingenuous are no way to carry on a civil discussion.

Anonymous
2nd Amendment in a(...) 11/04/12(Sun)16:03
No.6876960

2nd Amendment in a nutshell Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:03 No.6876960

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:04
No.6876988

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:04 No.6876988

>>6876958

Then ignore it and read the rest, if you're going to get your panties in a bunch, and if that's really your only criticism, then just leave this thread.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:04
No.6877013

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:04 No.6877013

>>6876958

>my feelings

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:07
No.6877065

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:07 No.6877065

>>6874761
You mean like Soto"Wise Latina check your privilege white firefighter scum your tests are biased against niggers and spics who can't read or write I'm here literally because of affirmative action"meyer?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:10
No.6877163

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:10 No.6877163

>>6876864
Obama wants the assault weapon ban back in place. Romney Doesnt.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:17
No.6877393

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:17 No.6877393

File: 1352063871083.jpg-(571 KB, 456x628, 1349897652550.jpg)

>yfw the bill of rights will burn for this

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:20
No.6877508

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:20 No.6877508

Replies: >>6877551 >>6877575

but obama is going to lose so it doesn't really even matter

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:22
No.6877551

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:22 No.6877551

Replies: >>6877627

>>6877508

Indications so far are that he's likely to win.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:22
No.6877575

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:22 No.6877575

Replies: >>6877606 >>6877627

>>6877508
Latest Swing State Polls
Here are the latest polls from the battleground states 11/04/2012

Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (YouGov)

Florida: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (Zogby)

Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Iowa: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (YouGov)

Nevada: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (YouGov)

New Hampshire: Obama 47%, Romney 43% (YouGov)

North Carolina: Romney 49%, Obama 47% (YouGov)

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 48% (Columbus Dispatch)

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 42% (Zogby)

Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (YouGov)

Pennsylvania: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (Morning Call)

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 44% (Zogby)

Virginia: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (YouGov)

Wisconsin: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (YouGov)


National Tracking Polls:

The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama moved ahead by one point, 48% to 47%.

The last YouGov survey has Obama leading by two points, 49% to 47%.

The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll finds Obama up by one point, 48% to 47%.

The final Pew Research survey finds President Obama has edged ahead of Mitt Romney in the final days of the presidential campaign, 48% to 45%

Meanwhile, the Politico/GWU poll and Rasmussen tracker both find the race tied, though both earlier found Romney leading.

No national poll shows romney in the lead anymore.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:23
No.6877606

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:23 No.6877606

Replies: >>6877698

>>6877575

>margins of error

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:24
No.6877627

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:24 No.6877627

Replies: >>6877710

>>6877575
>>6877551
you scared libfags?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:25
No.6877662

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:25 No.6877662

File: 1352064311911.jpg-(110 KB, 700x411, 1352007832611.jpg)

>scalia
>retire
yeah, maybe when he's in the ground
he has a direct line to the founding fathers up in heaven, don't you know that? the court will be lost without his guidance.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:25
No.6877684

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:25 No.6877684

So much for gun rights. It was a nice freedom while it lasted

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:25
No.6877694

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:25 No.6877694

>new librul suhpreme court overturns previous campaign finance decisions
> dark money no longer legal in elections
>republicans can no longer compete on state level in swing states
> democrats gain 60+ majority in senate, 250+ majority in house
>Hilary Clinton is elected in 2016
>glorious new age of American prosperity is firmly rooted

How many delicious conservative tears would be shead? How many backwoods rednecks would kill themselves?

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:26
No.6877698

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:26 No.6877698

>>6877606

When the results all point in the same direction, margins of error are less of a factor. At this point, there'd have to be some systematic bias against Romney for margins of error to play a role. It's possible, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments to that effect.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:26
No.6877710

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:26 No.6877710

>>6877627
I think you might be trolling.

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:27
No.6877727

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:27 No.6877727

Replies: >>6877814

>>6874624 (OP)

> mfw Ginsburg and Breyer are next up to retire :(
> mfw President Romney is going to appoint two shit tier young republicans to the court that we'll be stuck with for 40 years :(

Anonymous
11/04/12(Sun)16:30
No.6877814

Anonymous 11/04/12(Sun)16:30 No.6877814

>>6877727
>appoints paul ryan to supreme court

I would kill myself.