So very true. They'd be appalled at how SCOTUS is gutting it. cni do have to say i agree with this..GOP is imploding..they DO want to pick and choose..as for 2nd amendment?..i don't think our founding fathers understood there what the future held when they included this ..and the bible?..self-explanatory..prehistoric
LOL!So very true. They'd be appalled at how SCOTUS is gutting it. cn
assertions are not the same thing as evidence.Buck, it is being gutted. Has been. Domestic survellience has been going on for awhile. Hell roadblocks are constitutionally illegal aren't they?
I don't understand. Are you saying there's no evidence to back what I stated?assertions are not the same thing as evidence.
you sure didn't provide any.I don't understand. Are you saying there's no evidence to back what I stated?
So in order for us to progress in this discussion you are requesting links from me on illegal domestic surveillance?you sure didn't provide any.
they are illegal in AK.No Road blocks,sobriety check points etc.They violate the state constitutionBuck, it is being gutted. Has been. Domestic survellience has been going on for awhile. Hell roadblocks are constitutionally illegal aren't they?
there's nothing in the first or second about surveillance.So in order for us to progress in this discussion you are requesting links from me on illegal domestic surveillance?
the united states constitution is supreme over your state constitution, and they have ruled that sobriety check points are legal if done correctly.they are illegal in AK.No Road blocks,sobriety check points etc.They violate the state constitution
How true.there's nothing in the first or second about surveillance.
the united states constitution is supreme over your state constitution, and they have ruled that sobriety check points are legal if done correctly.
and thanks for your worthless contribution of information we already knew.How true.
Just like Federal law prohibits pot though some state laws have it decriminalized.
Just the way the law is written and passed by lawyers and politicians.
That time of the month?and thanks for your worthless contribution of information we already knew.
****PICS BACK ON SCHUYLAARS SESH JOURNAL****i may be wrong but didn't the supreme court rule on interracial marriages..The states have always had the power over marriage. They are the ones giving out marriage lisences not the Feds. This is why it may come down to a state level issue and reasoning why DOMA could be unconstitutional. The consitution doesnt speciifcally mention marriage. Therefor it can not be assumed to be a "constitutional right". Now I believe anyone should marry anyone so id hope the majority of states would decide for same sex marriage. However the thinking that the supreme court might call this a state level jurisdiction case makes sense.