What's funny is I'm all for campaign finance reform but I'm even more for flexing some constitutional muscle!
Damn, Chief Roberts. Already busting ass so early in the game?
Printable View
What's funny is I'm all for campaign finance reform but I'm even more for flexing some constitutional muscle!
Damn, Chief Roberts. Already busting ass so early in the game?
And on this board, I`m busting queen`s, aka the VillageIdiot`s ass. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Queen aka VillagIdiot still bitchin`, moanin` and complainin` that she doesn`t know shit from shinola !?
Your own words tell us you`re a fucking Liar, and a total ignoramus :Quote:
… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you.
Quote:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
Quote:
... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Queen, you`re a fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,
Moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand!?
Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.Quote:
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.Quote:
You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).
Teaching you lessons, humiliating you and embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore.
:lol:
1) Once again:
I understand you desperately want to misrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish
To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
http://www.navycs.com/gallery2/d/4367-2/loser.JPG
-Quinn
Queen still bitshin` and ichin` to get banned? :lol:
Quote:
Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly
[/b]
Quote:
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Queen, you`re a fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,
Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand retard !?
Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.Quote:
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.Quote:
You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).
Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:Quote:
You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.
Quote:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
Irrelevant bullshit in a desperate attempt to deflect from the germane issue.Quote:
The second one where he actually attempted to usurp my original position, trying – and pitifully failing – to claim it as his original position;
His latest, modified position.
You lose again VillageIdiot, a typical ugly american with zero knowledge of Constitutional law :
:lol:
This from the moron who authoritatively stated:
Quote:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
:lol:
1) Once again:
I understand you desperately want to misrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish
To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...umiliation.jpg
http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg
-Quinn
Queen aka VillagIdiot still bitchin`, moanin` and complainin` that she doesn`t know shit from shinola !?
Your own words tell us you`re a fucking Liar, and a total ignoramus :Quote:
… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you.
Quote:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
Quote:
... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Queen, you`re a fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,
Moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand retard !?
Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.Quote:
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.Quote:
You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).
Teaching you lessons, humiliating you, embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore.
1) Once again:
I understand you desperately want to misrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish
To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...umiliation.jpg
http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg
-Quinn
More lies by omission Queen? Yup, and more spamming and hi-jacking from queen,the VillageIdiot..
Village Idiot misquotes him/herself and Lies by Omission:
Limited !? It`s limited because it`s not illegal. Ah yes polls this and polls that. The option then become higher taxes on corporations combined with more laws requiring companies to file as C-corps and more protectionsist nonsense.
The convenient omission:
My original reply:Quote:
Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:
Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.
Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes.. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/sto...ews697278.html
LOL. What a fucking jerk ! Thanks for stating the obvious asshole,
" While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes."
Your own words tell us you`re a fucking Liar, and a total ignoramus :Quote:
… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you.
Quote:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
Quote:
... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Queen, you`re a fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,
Moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand retard !?
Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.Quote:
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.Quote:
You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).
Teaching you lessons, humiliating and embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore. :lol:
It get`s even worse for queen, aka the VillageIdiot.
Before the USSC decision that found McCain/Feingold unconstitutional this fool stated with authority:
Buh-waa-ha-haa!Quote:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
It get`s worse ! This moron then has this to say about McCain:
Quote:
He’s the odds on favorite to be the next president.
McCain the next president? Please tell me you didn't say that, Quinn. Pretty soon, dude is gonna have to get a job a "McDono's" just to pay the rent on his campaign.