U.S. Army Posts Job Listing For "93E Internment/Resettlement Specailist". - Polidicks

Those "interpretations" (lol wikipedia syntax) were simply adapting the laws that are rooted in the constitution to new and modern issues, such as the depression. [editline]04:27AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;16619713]Lovely, another debate, also Lankist, why did you go offline on steam?[/QUOTE] Because I didn't want to talk on steam anymore.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16619707]1: GG wikipedia 2: None of those had to do with such an "interpretation" that you imply. Those were all changes to inference made in regards to indirect implications the Constitution has. What you have implied is a new "interpretation" of something that is clearly and visibly stated right there in the bill of rights.[/QUOTE] [quote]the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts.[/quote] says that the feds have the power to force upon the states their interpretations of the constitution [quote]the court gained its own accommodation and radically changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal[/quote] the feds changed their interpretation to allow the new deal [quote]to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution[/quote] if they have to solve conflicts regarding interpretation of the constitution, looks like it is open to interpretation, doesn't it? [quote] According to Zinn, however, of the 20th century Courts only the Stone, Vinson, Warren, and to a lesser extent the Burger Courts (a time frame ranging approximately from 1941 to 1986) could be seen as leaning more toward a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and its guarantees,[/quote] from 41 to 86 the feds had a liberal interpretation, changing how one would view the influence of the government upon corporations and businesses [quote][b]No it isn't. The constitution isn't fucking up to interpretation. It is very precise and clear. That's why we fucking scrapped the Articles of Confederation to begin with.[/b] You can have an "interpretation" all you want but it's still wrong. And you're still degrading the integrity of the constitution. [/quote] looks like your interpretation on the interpretation of the constitution is incorrect gtfo

Fine. Let's assume you're right. You aren't, and I could argue that for hours, but I'll play along. Explain your interpretation of the constitution that disallows government from buying stock in companies.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16619723]Because I didn't want to talk on steam anymore.[/QUOTE] But Steam is giving me a Paradox now saying you have been offline for 10 hours.

Maybe I should just ask a mod to change the thread Title to "Debates! Debates!! & More Debates!!! Staring Lankist!"

Also this is the June 2008 Supreme Court Analysis and Interpretation of cases involving the United States Constitution. [url]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2008supplement.pdf[/url] If you were to read this you would understand that when the word "interpretation" is used, it doesn't mean "opinion." It means an expanded version of the precedence set forth by the constitution using historical Supreme Court cases and precedence that have an effect on constitutional law and individual rights therein. Its purpose is to mostly explain in detail the logic of the constitution in a historical context AND quell argument over constitutional wording and framing. For instance, on the subject of the Second Amendment: [quote]It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitely came down on the side of an "individual rights" theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the amendment, the court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars, that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of the phrases found in the amendment. etc etc[/quote] Analysis of the Constitution on the behalf of the supreme court does not boil down to "obama bad ombam cant buy stoxxxx"

[QUOTE=Broseph_;16619839]Maybe I should just ask a mod to change the thread Title to "Debates! Debates!! & More Debates!!! Staring Lankist!"[/QUOTE] I love seeing little children debate about such silly half truths and garbage stuff. When the actually important issues and crimes are hidden and ignored. If you want to criticize the U.S government it would make sense to discuss the U.S support for the radical Islamic Albanians and supporting them taking Kosovo( Homeland of the Christian Serbians) away from the natives. Now Non-Albanians in Kosovo who home are torn down and burned while and now forced into ghettos. All the thousand year old church's are burned down and anyone practicing Christianity is murdered by hanging. You would think that be a interesting issue for a so called Christian country like U.S to be interested in? Or maybe freedom loving citizens who ignore the U.S support for the President of Georgia who people are shot in the streets for protesting him. Yes Georgia becon for democracy when all News stations and papers are own by the President and only provide his message. But wait let all fight of the silly story about secret prisons or debate over Obama birth place! ( Sorry for my poor English, its not my first language and I would gladly like any tips for improvements)

Additionally, the interpretation may include things such as where to draw the line between free speech and the Clear and Present Danger philosophy (something I do not agree with on a philosophical level but is still well within the Constitution itself.)

[QUOTE=Meknes;16619978]I love seeing little children debate about such silly half truths and garbage stuff. When the actually important issues and crimes are hidden and ignored. If you want to criticize the U.S government it would make sense discuss U.S support for radical Islamic Albanians and supporting them taking the Kosovo( Homeland of the Christian Serbians) away from the natives. Now Non-Albanians in Kosovo who home are torn down and burned while and now forced into ghettos. All the thousand year old church's are burned down and anyone practicing Christianity is murdered by hanging. You would think that be a interesting issue for a so called Christian country like U.S to be interested in? Or maybe freedom loving citizens who ignore the support for the President of Georgia who people are shot in the streets for protesting him.[/QUOTE] whereovo?

[QUOTE=Lankist;16619970]Also this is the June 2008 Supreme Court Analysis and Interpretation of cases involving the United States Constitution. [url]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2008supplement.pdf[/url] If you were to read this you would understand that when the word "interpretation" is used, it doesn't mean "opinion." It means an expanded version of the precedence set forth by the constitution using historical Supreme Court cases and precedence that have an effect on constitutional law and individual rights therein. Its purpose is to mostly explain in detail the logic of the constitution in a historical context AND quell argument over constitutional wording and framing. For instance, on the subject of the Second Amendment: Analysis of the Constitution on the behalf of the supreme court does not boil down to "obama bad ombam cant buy stoxxxx"[/QUOTE] of course, it all makes sense now anyone who is against government interference must hate obama thank you for the wonderful revelation wait i think i had a second revelation could it possibly be anyone who hates government interference hates the majority of politicians? naw, makes too much sense [editline]04:58AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Meknes;16619978]I love seeing little children debate about such silly half truths and garbage stuff. When the actually important issues and crimes are hidden and ignored. If you want to criticize the U.S government it would make sense to discuss the U.S support for the radical Islamic Albanians and supporting them taking Kosovo( Homeland of the Christian Serbians) away from the natives. Now Non-Albanians in Kosovo who home are torn down and burned while and now forced into ghettos. All the thousand year old church's are burned down and anyone practicing Christianity is murdered by hanging. You would think that be a interesting issue for a so called Christian country like U.S to be interested in? Or maybe freedom loving citizens who ignore the U.S support for the President of Georgia who people are shot in the streets for protesting him. Yes Georgia becon for democracy when all News stations and papers are own by the President and only provide his message. But wait let all fight of the silly story about secret prisons or debate over Obama birth place! ( Sorry for my poor English, its not my first language and I would gladly like any tips for improvements)[/QUOTE] makes sense to me, the usa is only interested in countries with something we want, quite disgusting in my opinion iraq for instance edit: don't leave out vietnam! they will get lonely if they get left out again :( i'm Christian too

[QUOTE=Meknes;16619978]I love seeing little children debate about such silly half truths and garbage stuff. When the actually important issues and crimes are hidden and ignored. If you want to criticize the U.S government it would make sense to discuss the U.S support for the radical Islamic Albanians and supporting them taking Kosovo( Homeland of the Christian Serbians) away from the natives. Now Non-Albanians in Kosovo who home are torn down and burned while and now forced into ghettos. All the thousand year old church's are burned down and anyone practicing Christianity is murdered by hanging. You would think that be a interesting issue for a so called Christian country like U.S to be interested in? Or maybe freedom loving citizens who ignore the U.S support for the President of Georgia who people are shot in the streets for protesting him. Yes Georgia becon for democracy when all News stations and papers are own by the President and only provide his message. But wait let all fight of the silly story about secret prisons or debate over Obama birth place! ( Sorry for my poor English, its not my first language and I would gladly like any tips for improvements)[/QUOTE] I think your english is good enough to know that what you just posted has no relation to the topic at hand.

That's great and all but I'm waiting for a legitimate reply instead of dodging

[QUOTE=Lankist;16620110]That's great and all but I'm waiting for a legitimate reply instead of dodging[/QUOTE] to which post? i just got back from my sammich

[QUOTE=Lankist;16619818]Fine. Let's assume you're right. You aren't, and I could argue that for hours, but I'll play along. Explain your interpretation of the constitution that disallows government from buying stock in companies.[/QUOTE] I made this post to help you understand what "interpretation of the constitution" means: [QUOTE=Lankist;16619970]Also this is the June 2008 Supreme Court Analysis and Interpretation of cases involving the United States Constitution. [url]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2008supplement.pdf[/url] If you were to read this you would understand that when the word "interpretation" is used, it doesn't mean "opinion." It means an expanded version of the precedence set forth by the constitution using historical Supreme Court cases and precedence that have an effect on constitutional law and individual rights therein. Its purpose is to mostly explain in detail the logic of the constitution in a historical context AND quell argument over constitutional wording and framing. For instance, on the subject of the Second Amendment: Analysis of the Constitution on the behalf of the supreme court does not boil down to "obama bad ombam cant buy stoxxxx"[/QUOTE] [editline]05:04AM[/editline] When I say interpretation I mean historical evidence and references to previous precedence set by the supreme court. [editline]05:05AM[/editline] Not "this is what I think."

[QUOTE=Meknes;16619978]radical Islamic Albanians and supporting them taking Kosovo[/QUOTE] Serb Detected Kocoвo Je Aлбански!!! Now stop trying to derail this thread any further then it has over the United States bombing your third world country over a decade ago.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16620140]I made this post to help you understand what "interpretation of the constitution" means: [editline]05:04AM[/editline] When I say interpretation I mean historical evidence and references to previous precedence set by the supreme court. [editline]05:05AM[/editline] Not "this is what I think."[/QUOTE] oh Lord i hate pdfs, but i'll read it anyways will reply when done edit: will be longer than previously expected, have to download and install acrobat oh fuck mate, didn't tell me it was 186 pages :/ i will spend time searching for a case involving government intervention in corporate affairs and to use the outcome of that case to base my interpretations upon happy? if you are happy enough try some cake its very good sugar free too for them diabeetus people

Oh wow, the last five pages is nothing but Lankist trolling Facepunch. [B]BOTTOM LINE:[/B] The Army's hiring prison guards. Moving on, nothing to see here folks.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;16620106]I think your english is good enough to know that what you just posted has no relation to the topic at hand.[/QUOTE] Thank you for your comment, I was trying to refer to the thread topic story based on silly claims of prison camps and the such. Also referring what I see a lot in the media debating silly topics like Obama birth place. When real crimes topic go ignored and unreported.

lankist, help me look please, sooooooo many cases halp! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Willow_River_Power_Co[/url]. [url]http://supreme.justia.com/us/324/499/case.html[/url] another [url]http://supreme.justia.com/us/345/146/case.html[/url] holy walrus tits chalk man, looks like based upon these cases, my interpretation of the supreme court's interpretation is that government interference in a corporation is unconstitutional!

[QUOTE=Broseph_;16620180]Serb Detected Kocoвo Je Aлбански!!! Now stop trying to derail this thread any further then it has over the United States bombing your third world country over a decade ago.[/QUOTE] Ya I am a Muslim sorry not Serbian, Also Serbia not really a third world country. and I was referring to recent events in Kosovo. But it glad to where your heart and soul is may it one day be filled with love and peace.

[QUOTE=Ca5bah;16620381]lankist, help me look please, sooooooo many cases halp! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Willow_River_Power_Co[/url]. [url]http://supreme.justia.com/us/324/499/case.html[/url][/QUOTE] If you can't be arsed to do basic research how the fuck do you expect anyone to take your interpretation seriously? [editline]05:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Madman_Andre;16620334]Oh wow, the last five pages is nothing but Lankist trolling Facepunch.[/QUOTE] Hi guys I happen to have specialized training in this subje- TROLL TROLL WOW HES A TROLL GUYS [editline]05:39AM[/editline] Also I don't see how referencing a case about government trying to maintain local water levels illegally has anything to do with government buying stock in international corporations that are tanking and bringing millions of employees with them. [editline]05:41AM[/editline] The government seized control of an uncooperative hydroelectric plant illegally. The government bought stocks in an international corporation that is asking the government for immediate help. I see no difference here

[QUOTE=Lankist;16620489]If you can't be arsed to do basic research how the fuck do you expect anyone to take your interpretation seriously? [editline]05:37AM[/editline] Hi guys I happen to have specialized training in this subje- TROLL TROLL WOW HES A TROLL GUYS [editline]05:39AM[/editline] Also I don't see how referencing a case about government trying to maintain local water levels illegally has anything to do with government buying stock in international corporations that are tanking and bringing millions of employees with them. [editline]05:41AM[/editline] The government seized control of an uncooperative hydroelectric plant illegally. The government bought stocks in an international corporation that is asking the government for immediate help. I see no difference here[/QUOTE] what a wee goobler, what i claimed earlier is that by my interpretation of the fifth amendment, it is unconstitutional for the us government to interfere in the private matters of a corporation. first you claimed that the constitution is a solid fact. not interpretable. i proved you wrong there. [b]strike 1[/b] secondly you said that my interpretation of the interpretation is incorrectly applied to the interpretation of others interpreting the constitution. i found evidence where previous cases ruled government interference is unconstitutional. my interpretation, ordered like you wanted, with specific historic evidence, is that based upon aforementioned case, it is unconstitutional for the government to meddle in private affairs. [b]strike 2[/b] based upon the hyrdoelectric plan case, my interpretation is that because it was ruled unconstitutional for the government to seize said hyrdo plant, it is also against the constitution for the government to meddle in matters which do not involve them. fyi, GM wanted to refund the money the government gave them. the government refused. nationalizing be embraced! case closed you loose

No If you did not read the case, it was not about the US government's right to interfere, it was the clause that just compensation is constitutionally guaranteed. [quote]The resulting damage to the riparian owner in this case did not constitute such a taking of property as is required by the Fifth Amendment to be compensated.[/quote] Therefore 25,000 dollars were paid in compensation. The precedence was NOT that the government cannot interfere in the private sector, it was that the government was required to compensate. In the (sourceless) case you mention of GM, the government is fully within its right to intervene SO LONG AS adequate compensation is provided. [editline]05:50AM[/editline] Try again. [editline]05:51AM[/editline] FYI you don't just say "hey look at this case." It needs detailed explanation.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16620627]No If you did not read the case, it was not about the US government's right to interfere, it was the clause that just compensation is constitutionally guaranteed. Therefore 25,000 dollars were paid in compensation. The precedence was NOT that the government cannot interfere in the private sector, it was that the government was required to compensate. [editline]05:50AM[/editline] Try again.[/QUOTE] read me edited post. this conversation is over. you claimed that i wasn't forming my interpretation properly, and i proved you to be ass backwards. i won the original argument, and i am done at that. i'm done

[QUOTE=Ca5bah;16620648]read me edited post. this conversation is over. you claimed that i wasn't forming my interpretation properly, and i proved you to be ass backwards. i won the original argument, and i am done at that. i'm done[/QUOTE] You aren't forming your "interpretation" properly by the standard of analysis of the Constitution. You have won nothing and by leaving you admit that I have won.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16620627] In the (sourceless) case you mention of GM, the government is fully within its right to intervene SO LONG AS adequate compensation is provided. [editline]05:50AM[/editline] .[/QUOTE] ugh, read my post 1 or 2 before that, GM tried to refund the money. the government refused. GM did not receive proper compensation. once more, done. i win the original argument.

Your edited post only adds a halfassed baseball reference. [editline]05:54AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ca5bah;16620668]ugh, read my post 1 or 2 before that, GM tried to refund the money. the government refused. GM did not receive proper compensation.[/QUOTE] Yes they did. The ability to refund money is not compensation you ninny. [editline]05:54AM[/editline] And I thought you were done. [editline]05:57AM[/editline] Furthermore I would appreciate a source for the claim that GM did not willingly accept bailout money.

No, I won the argument. And now I'm leaving.

And that the government somehow raped their bank accounts with money.

Hahaha, I found older manuals for this job, and it turns out Obama wasn't even able to vote when these manuals were made! 1981 - [url]http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA116493[/url] 1978 - [url]http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA121081[/url] 1976 - [url]http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA093443[/url]