[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=pri_dk]For history nerds like myself, I found this to be interesting and related to current news:

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/legislation.html

While Congress has passed thousands of statutes over more than two centuries, the Court had exercised its power to rule laws or portions of laws unconstitutional only about 150 times by the early 2000s. The congressional statutes invalidated have included many relatively minor laws, but also such major enactments as the Missouri Compromise, a federal income tax, child labor laws, New Deal economic recovery acts, the post-Watergate campaign finance law, statutes to curb pornography on the Internet, efforts to allow victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court for compensatory damages, amendments to a landmark age discrimination law, and the line-item veto.

Although 150 federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and these rulings have spanned history such that they have occurred during almost every Presidential administration in the past 100 years, no one has ever called for the impeachment of a President for this reason.

Well, not until now.[/quote]

Are you some sort of pot-head college drop out?

The question you should have researched wasn’t how many times has a law been held unconstitutional and during whose administration, but how many times after a law has been held unconstitutional the sitting president said he didn’t care and would enforce the law anyway. (I duly note that your article discusses holdings by the SCOTUS, whilst the current holder of the highest office is only violating the order of a federal court ruling in favour of twenty six states lest you attempt another ham-handed gotcha.)

I’m awarding you a gold-star epic fail in your attempt at snarky smugness and pseudo-intellectualism and a D minus for reading comprehension.

And thanks for reminding me to be very circumspect if I’m ever presented the opportunity to vote for higher pay and benefits for teachers.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I think this is a more accurate representation of a picture.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379

[/quote]

Love it!

All those white boys lookin’ at Obama but the brotha just ain’t gonna budge![/quote]

I love it too. 🙂

I also wonder why the forgotten man a a White man. How about a Black man or a Native-American instead?[/quote]

Really Brian? Think about being at a nice restaurant with your wife and kids: when they bring the check do they put the bill in front of Jr., the Mrs., or you? Your answer is hiding in there somewhere.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I think this is a more accurate representation of a picture.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379

[/quote]

Love it!

All those white boys lookin’ at Obama but the brotha just ain’t gonna budge![/quote]

I love it too. 🙂

I also wonder why the forgotten man a a White man. How about a Black man or a Native-American instead?[/quote]

Really Brian? Think about being at a nice restaurant with your wife and kids: when they bring the check do they put the bill in front of Jr., the Mrs., or you? Your answer is hiding in there somewhere.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I think this is a more accurate representation of a picture.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379

[/quote]

Love it!

All those white boys lookin’ at Obama but the brotha just ain’t gonna budge![/quote]

I love it too. 🙂

I also wonder why the forgotten man a a White man. How about a Black man or a Native-American instead?[/quote]

Really Brian? Think about being at a nice restaurant with your wife and kids: when they bring the check do they put the bill in front of Jr., the Mrs., or you? Your answer is hiding in there somewhere.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I think this is a more accurate representation of a picture.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379

[/quote]

Love it!

All those white boys lookin’ at Obama but the brotha just ain’t gonna budge![/quote]

I love it too. 🙂

I also wonder why the forgotten man a a White man. How about a Black man or a Native-American instead?[/quote]

Really Brian? Think about being at a nice restaurant with your wife and kids: when they bring the check do they put the bill in front of Jr., the Mrs., or you? Your answer is hiding in there somewhere.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I think this is a more accurate representation of a picture.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379

[/quote]

Love it!

All those white boys lookin’ at Obama but the brotha just ain’t gonna budge![/quote]

I love it too. 🙂

I also wonder why the forgotten man a a White man. How about a Black man or a Native-American instead?[/quote]

Really Brian? Think about being at a nice restaurant with your wife and kids: when they bring the check do they put the bill in front of Jr., the Mrs., or you? Your answer is hiding in there somewhere.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Aecetia]I agree with flu. Privatize the schools and create more trade schools. Not everyone should go to college.[/quote]

You could be an ugly hairy plumber named Phil and I would still find you dreamy (and I’m a married straight guy)!

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Aecetia]I agree with flu. Privatize the schools and create more trade schools. Not everyone should go to college.[/quote]

You could be an ugly hairy plumber named Phil and I would still find you dreamy (and I’m a married straight guy)!

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Aecetia]I agree with flu. Privatize the schools and create more trade schools. Not everyone should go to college.[/quote]

You could be an ugly hairy plumber named Phil and I would still find you dreamy (and I’m a married straight guy)!

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Aecetia]I agree with flu. Privatize the schools and create more trade schools. Not everyone should go to college.[/quote]

You could be an ugly hairy plumber named Phil and I would still find you dreamy (and I’m a married straight guy)!

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Aecetia]I agree with flu. Privatize the schools and create more trade schools. Not everyone should go to college.[/quote]

You could be an ugly hairy plumber named Phil and I would still find you dreamy (and I’m a married straight guy)!

[Author]

Posts