Here Are 5 Ways You Know Trump Knows Trump Is Losing

Trump can't "disband" NATO. It's a treaty organization, and only the Senate can ratify or rescind a treaty, and then it takes a two thirds vote. The Senate is not that far down the road to lunacy at this point.

So much of what Trump says, and so much of what the teabaggers blab about shows a complete ignorance of the constitution. It's not that difficult a document to read, even teabaggers should be able to read it in an hour. Of course, understanding it, that could take them much, much longer. Trump is just a popularity whore, he will say whatever he thinks the lunatic fringe of the right wants to hear. He is probably the least qualified, the least informed candidate for this office in our history.

I don't know Set, I know a lot of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution as well. Just look at the simply written 2nd amendment and how far it gets twisted around.

Oh yeah, and the conservatives are just brilliant in understanding the constitution, eh? Such as the first clause of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . Article one, section eight details the powers explicitly given to Congress, including this paragraph: [Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;--which means Congress has the power to select what weapons the people may keep and bear under their power to provide for arming the militia. Run the by your NRA buddies sometime. I've had rightwingnuts tell me that the first clause doesn't really mean anything, as though lawyers ever write such things idly.

What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's.

McGentrix wrote:

What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's.

Life expectancy was about 35 years at that time, btw.

What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's.

Are you suggesting that I make "vague and unsubstantiated allegations"? I certainly do not try to be neither vague nor unsubstantiated.

I think your commentary alone shows that liberals have no understanding of the 2nd amendment. I mean you understand that the words say things but you want to warp them into something that was neither intended or plain.

"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.

Do you believe that women should not be entitled to the rights enumerated within the Constitution? Militias did not allow women, so they shouldn't be entitled under "the people" then, right? What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's. Why do you hate women and old people Setanta?

McGentrix wrote:

Are you suggesting that I make "vague and unsubstantiated allegations"? I certainly do not try to be neither vague nor unsubstantiated.

That's just exactly what you did when you claimed that states violate peoples' second amendment rights, but failed to provide any examples.

Quote:

I think your commentary alone shows that liberals have no understanding of the 2nd amendment. I mean you understand that the words say things but you want to warp them into something that was neither intended or plain.

Another vague and unsubstantiated charge on your part.

Quote:

"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.

Nonsense--educate yourself for a change. Read the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act (from the name of its sponsor). It is Congress who categorized the people as being divided into the organized militia as constituted by that Act as the National Guard, and all others as the unorganized militia.

Quote:

Do you believe that women should not be entitled to the rights enumerated within the Constitution? Militias did not allow women, so they shouldn't be entitled under "the people" then, right? What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's. Why do you hate women and old people Setanta?

This is just emotive hysterical BS, and a bad recitation of the conservative party line. Nothing i said remotely supports these wild accusations of your. Your claim about the age of militia members is something you just made up in your head. Israel Putnam, a veteran of the French and Indian War, who had served with distinction, was 57 years old when he heard of the fights at Lexington and Concord, and he rode 100 miles in eight hours to get to Boston to offer his services--which were accepted. He became second in command to Artemis Ward, 47 years old. William Prescott, an officer in the Massachusetts militia who commanded the troops who built and manned the redoubt on Breed's Hill during the battle called Bunker Hill, was 48 years old. He was supported by John Stark of New Hampshire, a colonel in the New Hampshire militia, 47 years old.

I can go on like that all day. All you offer is more vague and unsubstantiated claims, which end up being straw man fallacies. I've provided the text of the constitution, and cited case law. All we've gotten from yoiu is hysterical accusations.

See, e.g., Militia Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 33, § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (repealed 1903) (stating "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall . . . be enrolled in the militia"); Militia Act, 10 U.S.C. § 311 (1994) (defining militia to consist of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age [plus some re-enlisted National Guard members up to age 64] 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"); Miller, 307 U.S. at 179 ("The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from [late 18th-century writings]. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."). State constitutions generally have similar definitions, though some contain slight variations. Compare Ariz. Const. art. XVI, § 1 (1910); Ark. Const. art. XI, § 1 (1874); Ind. Const. art. XII, § 1 (1851); Iowa Const. art. VI, § 1 (1857); Ky. Const. § 219 (1890); N.M. Const. art. XVIII, § 1 (1911); N.D. Const. art. 13, § 188 (1889); S.C. Const. art. XIII, § 1 (1868); S.D. Const. art. XV, § 1 (1889); Utah Const. art. XV, § 1 (1895); Wyo. Const. art. XVII, § 1 (1889) (referring to all able-bodied male citizens, or sometimes all able-bodied males, from 18 to 45, with other slight variations), with Kan. Const. art. 8, § 1 (1859) (referring to all able-bodied male citizens from 21 to 45) and with Fla. Const. art. 10, § 2 (1968 revision); Ill. Const. art. XII, § 1 (1970); Ind. Const. art. 12, § 1 (1851) (amended 1974); and Mont. Const. art. VI, § 13, cl. 2 (1972) (referring to all able-bodied persons or all able-bodied persons over 17). See generally Don B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 215 n.46 (1983) (stating that militia in colonial times included males aged 15, 16, or 18 through 45, 50, or 60, depending on colony). Following the Court's sex equality decisions, the militia now probably includes able-bodied women in the proper age category as well as able-bodied men. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (striking down sex classification in context of state military college); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (holding that sex classifications are constitutional only if substantially related to important state interest). But see Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) (upholding sex classification in context of draft registration law).

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

So much of what Trump says, and so much of what the teabaggers blab about shows a complete ignorance of the constitution. It's not that difficult a document to read, even teabaggers should be able to read it in an hour. Of course, understanding it, that could take them much, much longer.

I don't know Set, I know a lot of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution as well. Just look at the simply written 2nd amendment and how far it gets twisted around.

Oh yeah, and the conservatives are just brilliant in understanding the constitution, eh?

Such as the first clause of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . Article one, section eight details the powers explicitly given to Congress, including this paragraph: [Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;--which means Congress has the power to select what weapons the people may keep and bear under their power to provide for arming the militia.

Why does the last clause say the rights of the people instead of the right of the militia then? No one has ever argued that the government is not in charge of the militia, arming the militia, training the militia, but the people (read: not the militia) have a right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE the government runs the militia.

Of course all of this has bearing only on the Federal Govt and not the states, unfortunately. They seem fine with violating peoples gun rights left and right.

The Supremes held in McDonald versus Chicago (2010) that the second amendment is incorporated by the fourteenth amendment's due process clause. Of course, your response dodges the question of whether or not any particular body of the electorate understand the constitution. But, in response to the vague claim that states violate people's gun rights, anyone who feels that is the case can appeal the provisions of a law in Federal courts and refer to the decision in McDonald versus Chicago--that's how it works. If the second amendment is now incorporated, the states would have the same right, even duty, to regulate the militia well. The Militia Act of 1903 divides "the people" into the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, everybody else.

"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.

The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.

How about you get over yourself, and stop making sh*t up or attempting to twist the meanings? You have never even bothered to establish what my opinions on gun control are. You just come up with your "libruls think this or that" bullsh*t--it seems to me that you don't know much about anything.