Not true what Juan said about slavery. Slavery was never in the constitution and if the judges were strict constitutionalists, then it would've been illegal way before Lincoln. But by having 'empathy' for the southern states it was never done. dumb statement.
point well taken. however, there never was anything stating directly that a person or whoever had the right to own slaves. it was never addressed directly and sadly by what Adams and others wanted it to have in it. I'm just saying that a strict court could not read the bill of rights and the points you show and not seen a conflict. they all were empathetic and would not address it. i'd have to look at the history of cases brought before the court to debate it any further.
I think that you will find that it had nothing to do with "empathy" (or sympathy) but rather, from the very beginning, the question of slavery was always viewed as a 'states rights" issue -- something over which individual states had control, not the federal government.
"Dred Scott" was considered a major threat because it undermined states right in a pro-slave state direction.
It undermined the ability of a free state to declare a runaway slave within its borders to be a free man.
In the US, they throw you out on the street if you're too poor to afford health insurance, and the "Christian" conservatives talk about "family values", what a sickening country.
you are so wrong. my health hmo went from $50 co-payment er visit to $150 in order to cover those who could not pay. it doesn't happen. so go try your liberal bs somewhere else.
Let's not kid ourselves here, both the liberals and the conservatives on the supreme court are ideologues and activists. I know you cons are proud with your constructionist badge, but it means jack when you have a clown like Scalia arguing "torture is not cruel and unusual punishment" (yes torture in general). Where's my right to bear nukes btw?
Torture can never be punishment. It is not used in response to a wrong doing. Therefore it is not cruel and unusual punishment....First - prove that you can afford an ICBM by agreeing to paypal me $100,000 - then we'll consider the ramifications of the 2nd amendment...
"Torture can never be punishment. It is not used in response to a wrong doing. Therefore it is not cruel and unusual punishment..."
Ah I see you suffer from the same mental disease Scalia does. Torture is the punishment given for not fully cooperating, Heck the 8th amendment specifically denotes bail, so this fully applies to suspects.
"First - prove that you can afford an ICBM by agreeing to paypal me $100,000 - then we'll consider the ramifications of the 2nd."
no - you're wrong. "Cruel & unusual punishment" refers to the criminal justice system. Torture falls under the military jurisdiction. My response to your icbm comment could only have been dumb since the original comment was stupid...
I think people are over-analyzing this empathy comment.
mfiorell 2 years ago
Awh, I appreciate your videos! Thanks for making them. Nice lighting that you used when you were recording it (; haha
chick5581 2 years ago
The info is backwards. Laura Ingraham is mentally challenged
rompstyle 2 years ago
people are idiots torture being put in jail and feed crap food is torture amazing idiots talk biased crap and never really get anything wise done
tomanyasses 2 years ago
Republicans are already whining and not a single potential nominee has been named yet.
papipablo 2 years ago 4
Pathetic
SlowRealization 2 years ago
Republican and Constitution in the same sentence is so funny. After using it as toliet paper for over 200 years they want to act Constitutional?
Hillary Clinton for the U.S. Supreme Court
sage0857 2 years ago
really? tell us how they trashed it over the 200 yr period. ya, Democrats were the saviors of the constitution. Especially between 1860 - 1865.
firejack007 2 years ago
the democrats arent the same any more there made up of illgals and anti white america
tomanyasses 2 years ago
Not true what Juan said about slavery. Slavery was never in the constitution and if the judges were strict constitutionalists, then it would've been illegal way before Lincoln. But by having 'empathy' for the southern states it was never done. dumb statement.
firejack007 2 years ago
Slavery was never in the constitution?
Then who were the "others" that were to be counted as "three-quarters of a person" for reasons of calculating population?
People who'd lost their legs?
No. Slaves.
The existence of legal slavery and the way in which slave populations in slave states were to be used to calculate congressional representation.
States with lots of (non-voting) slaves got more congressmen -- presumably to represent the interests of their slaves.
prodprod 2 years ago
point well taken. however, there never was anything stating directly that a person or whoever had the right to own slaves. it was never addressed directly and sadly by what Adams and others wanted it to have in it. I'm just saying that a strict court could not read the bill of rights and the points you show and not seen a conflict. they all were empathetic and would not address it. i'd have to look at the history of cases brought before the court to debate it any further.
firejack007 2 years ago
I think that you will find that it had nothing to do with "empathy" (or sympathy) but rather, from the very beginning, the question of slavery was always viewed as a 'states rights" issue -- something over which individual states had control, not the federal government.
"Dred Scott" was considered a major threat because it undermined states right in a pro-slave state direction.
It undermined the ability of a free state to declare a runaway slave within its borders to be a free man.
prodprod 2 years ago
In the US, they throw you out on the street if you're too poor to afford health insurance, and the "Christian" conservatives talk about "family values", what a sickening country.
Hammer332 2 years ago 2
you are so wrong. my health hmo went from $50 co-payment er visit to $150 in order to cover those who could not pay. it doesn't happen. so go try your liberal bs somewhere else.
firejack007 2 years ago
so true infaltion will hit hard about the time of obama runs again and elected then it will be to late to stop him
tomanyasses 2 years ago
What ever side you follow, you need someone to follow the constitution. It is the constitution. Its basic law.
martinaoe2 2 years ago
Poor neocons... You lost. deal with it. Get over it.
il128 2 years ago 3
Poor liberals.... You have a constitution to deal with.... Yes it still exists...
ConservativeNow 2 years ago
Let's not kid ourselves here, both the liberals and the conservatives on the supreme court are ideologues and activists. I know you cons are proud with your constructionist badge, but it means jack when you have a clown like Scalia arguing "torture is not cruel and unusual punishment" (yes torture in general). Where's my right to bear nukes btw?
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
Ingraham has a whine that voices over the others , Just what I expect from another Fox News Whore
sunnymarky 2 years ago
clueless liberals are the manority in this country
Tejanito 2 years ago
manority? Learn how to spell you douchebag
jamesgardin 2 years ago
Laura Ingraham tries to talk some sense to Juan Williams..........and she is a CLASSIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
awreslr2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
there is no talking sense into Jaun Williams, he's an Obama apologist, left wing hack. Laura Ingraham is right on as usual.
Sixthick66 2 years ago
Laura Ingraham. The most useless two words I've written all day.
GodLovesSarahPalin 2 years ago
Useless to a tool like you...but makes sense to people who understand jurisprudence...
marklross2 2 years ago
BWAHAHAHAHA! When it comes to Jurisprudence conservatives like Scalia and Thomas are the most activist members of the court.
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
If by activist you mean ACTIVELY resisting the court's corruption by the left - yes....activists...
marklross2 2 years ago
Overturning precedent. But also scrambling your brains to an extent when torture is no longer 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Why do those activists Scalia and Thomas insist on inflicting on my right to bear Minuteman III ICBMs anyway?
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
Torture can never be punishment. It is not used in response to a wrong doing. Therefore it is not cruel and unusual punishment....First - prove that you can afford an ICBM by agreeing to paypal me $100,000 - then we'll consider the ramifications of the 2nd amendment...
marklross2 2 years ago
"Torture can never be punishment. It is not used in response to a wrong doing. Therefore it is not cruel and unusual punishment..."
Ah I see you suffer from the same mental disease Scalia does. Torture is the punishment given for not fully cooperating, Heck the 8th amendment specifically denotes bail, so this fully applies to suspects.
"First - prove that you can afford an ICBM by agreeing to paypal me $100,000 - then we'll consider the ramifications of the 2nd."
Wow, that was even dumber
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
no - you're wrong. "Cruel & unusual punishment" refers to the criminal justice system. Torture falls under the military jurisdiction. My response to your icbm comment could only have been dumb since the original comment was stupid...
marklross2 2 years ago
god loves sarah palin , the most useless four words that i have ever written .......
lmn8bush 2 years ago