Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Perry Mason
()
Date: November 03, 2018 08:50AM
Factoids Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roe found a (invisible) right to privacy, not property rights.
Too fucking stupid. Rights implied in the Constitution are every bit as valid and protected as those that were enumerated. This is why the 9th Fucking Amendment was written -- to thwart assholes like you. The right to privacy meanwhile has many layers, some of which likely lie dormant still because the circumstances that would reveal them have not arisen yet.
Meanwhile, a mother in California can simply abort her fetus if she so chooses. No one can force her to do so nor unreasonably deter her from it. This is because of the woman's property rights in her pregnancy, even if some are simply too dumb to realize that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roe found a (invisible) right to privacy, not property rights.
Too fucking stupid. Rights implied in the Constitution are every bit as valid and protected as those that were enumerated. This is why the 9th Fucking Amendment was written -- to thwart assholes like you. The right to privacy meanwhile has many layers, some of which likely lie dormant still because the circumstances that would reveal them have not arisen yet.
Meanwhile, a mother in California can simply abort her fetus if she so chooses. No one can force her to do so nor unreasonably deter her from it. This is because of the woman's property rights in her pregnancy, even if some are simply too dumb to realize that.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
still wrong
()
Date: November 03, 2018 09:01AM
Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rights implied in the
> Constitution are every bit as valid and protected
> as those that were enumerated.
And children, this ^^^^ is where the wheels come off the libtards crazy rantings. Not only has this fool been forced to defend killing Jews by Nazis as moral, now he's trying to tell us that if 5 people 'find' a right in the law that isn't written there but they 'think' should be included, that's just as good as what the authors wrote.
Oh my, how sad that people so uninformed and loony as Perry Mason get to vote.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rights implied in the
> Constitution are every bit as valid and protected
> as those that were enumerated.
And children, this ^^^^ is where the wheels come off the libtards crazy rantings. Not only has this fool been forced to defend killing Jews by Nazis as moral, now he's trying to tell us that if 5 people 'find' a right in the law that isn't written there but they 'think' should be included, that's just as good as what the authors wrote.
Oh my, how sad that people so uninformed and loony as Perry Mason get to vote.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Perry Mason
()
Date: November 03, 2018 11:46AM
It has never at any point in the history of the republic been considered that a federal power had to be specifically enumerated in order for it to exist. All that the Constitution IMPLIES exists as fully as all that it STATES. There are in fact a great many federal powers today lying dormant and undiscovered within the Constitution simply because the circumstances that will serve to reveal them have not yet come about or into being. Don't think so? Try swallowing this...
But it is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110 U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language. Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed."
-- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court, South Carolina v US (1905)
The cited case of Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884, and the same sentiment carries back through the Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, to such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland and Marbury v Madison, and from there on into the Federalist Papers. Your childish and ill-informed posts take exactly none of this into account. Hence, it would appear that you are just another uneducated right-wing jaw-flapper.
But it is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110 U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language. Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed."
-- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court, South Carolina v US (1905)
The cited case of Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884, and the same sentiment carries back through the Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, to such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland and Marbury v Madison, and from there on into the Federalist Papers. Your childish and ill-informed posts take exactly none of this into account. Hence, it would appear that you are just another uneducated right-wing jaw-flapper.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
George Washington
()
Date: November 03, 2018 12:04PM
Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has never at any point in the history of the
> republic been considered that a federal power had
> to be specifically enumerated in order for it to
> exist. All that the Constitution IMPLIES exists as
> fully as all that it STATES. There are in fact a
> great many federal powers today lying dormant and
> undiscovered within the Constitution simply
> because the circumstances that will serve to
> reveal them have not yet come about or into being.
> Don't think so? Try swallowing this...
>
> But it is undoubtedly true that that which is
> implied is as much a part of the Constitution as
> that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice
> Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110
> U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such
> power is supported by the old argument, often
> heard, often repeated, and in this Court never
> assented to, that when a question of the power of
> Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be
> able to place his finger on words which expressly
> grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though
> directed to the authority of that body to pass
> criminal laws, uses the same language. Because
> there is no express power to provide for
> preventing violence exercised on the voter as a
> means of controlling his vote, no such law can be
> enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing
> the Constitution of the United States, the
> doctrine universally applied to all instruments of
> writing, that what is implied is as much a part of
> the instrument as what is expressed."
>
> -- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court,
> South Carolina v US (1905)
>
> The cited case of Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884,
> and the same sentiment carries back through the
> Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, to
> such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland and
> Marbury v Madison, and from there on into the
> Federalist Papers. Your childish and ill-informed
> posts take exactly none of this into account.
> Hence, it would appear that you are just another
> uneducated right-wing jaw-flapper.
Gee, it must be true because some dude said it. The dude also happened to have a vested interest in a powerful federal government, being that he sat on the highest federal court.
Let's go back a 120 years earlier and see what the founders had to say about it:
Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Weakminded fools like you think some random, anonymous federal aristocrat has more credibility than the geniuses who set this whole thing up and scarified their blood and fortune, as well as risking the gallows, to set us on the right path. You are a terrible American. But you'd make a great North Korean. Why don't you go there and worship the government. They love uninformed cogs.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has never at any point in the history of the
> republic been considered that a federal power had
> to be specifically enumerated in order for it to
> exist. All that the Constitution IMPLIES exists as
> fully as all that it STATES. There are in fact a
> great many federal powers today lying dormant and
> undiscovered within the Constitution simply
> because the circumstances that will serve to
> reveal them have not yet come about or into being.
> Don't think so? Try swallowing this...
>
> But it is undoubtedly true that that which is
> implied is as much a part of the Constitution as
> that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice
> Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110
> U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such
> power is supported by the old argument, often
> heard, often repeated, and in this Court never
> assented to, that when a question of the power of
> Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be
> able to place his finger on words which expressly
> grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though
> directed to the authority of that body to pass
> criminal laws, uses the same language. Because
> there is no express power to provide for
> preventing violence exercised on the voter as a
> means of controlling his vote, no such law can be
> enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing
> the Constitution of the United States, the
> doctrine universally applied to all instruments of
> writing, that what is implied is as much a part of
> the instrument as what is expressed."
>
> -- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court,
> South Carolina v US (1905)
>
> The cited case of Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884,
> and the same sentiment carries back through the
> Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, to
> such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland and
> Marbury v Madison, and from there on into the
> Federalist Papers. Your childish and ill-informed
> posts take exactly none of this into account.
> Hence, it would appear that you are just another
> uneducated right-wing jaw-flapper.
Gee, it must be true because some dude said it. The dude also happened to have a vested interest in a powerful federal government, being that he sat on the highest federal court.
Let's go back a 120 years earlier and see what the founders had to say about it:
Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Weakminded fools like you think some random, anonymous federal aristocrat has more credibility than the geniuses who set this whole thing up and scarified their blood and fortune, as well as risking the gallows, to set us on the right path. You are a terrible American. But you'd make a great North Korean. Why don't you go there and worship the government. They love uninformed cogs.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Perry Mason
()
Date: November 03, 2018 12:55PM
George Washington Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gee, it must be true because some dude said it.
It was a whole lot of dudes, dude. Dudes stretching all the way back to the dawn of the Republic. And the words of every single one of them point out that you are a dimwitted asswi[pe.
> Let's go back a 120 years earlier and see what the
> founders had to say about it:
>
> Article X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> states, are reserved to the states respectively,
> or to the people.
LOL!!! The 10tn Amendment is entirely RESIDUAL, you fucking moron!!! It confers no powers at all on anyone at all. It only says what ought to be done with any powers 'not mentioned above'. As the whole purpose of the Constitution was to define a far stronger central government than what had existed under the Articles of Confederation, that residual would of course exclude almost everything imaginable.
> Weakminded fools like you think some random,
> anonymous federal aristocrat has more credibility
> than the geniuses who set this whole thing up and
> scarified their blood and fortune, as well as
> risking the gallows, to set us on the right path.
> You are a terrible American. But you'd make a
> great North Korean. Why don't you go there and
> worship the government. They love uninformed cogs.
Go fuck yourself, you pathetic ignorant ass-troll. You have no feet to stand on here. You know less than jack-shit about the Constitution and its jurisprudence since. You are just another pathetic right-wing dope.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gee, it must be true because some dude said it.
It was a whole lot of dudes, dude. Dudes stretching all the way back to the dawn of the Republic. And the words of every single one of them point out that you are a dimwitted asswi[pe.
> Let's go back a 120 years earlier and see what the
> founders had to say about it:
>
> Article X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> states, are reserved to the states respectively,
> or to the people.
LOL!!! The 10tn Amendment is entirely RESIDUAL, you fucking moron!!! It confers no powers at all on anyone at all. It only says what ought to be done with any powers 'not mentioned above'. As the whole purpose of the Constitution was to define a far stronger central government than what had existed under the Articles of Confederation, that residual would of course exclude almost everything imaginable.
> Weakminded fools like you think some random,
> anonymous federal aristocrat has more credibility
> than the geniuses who set this whole thing up and
> scarified their blood and fortune, as well as
> risking the gallows, to set us on the right path.
> You are a terrible American. But you'd make a
> great North Korean. Why don't you go there and
> worship the government. They love uninformed cogs.
Go fuck yourself, you pathetic ignorant ass-troll. You have no feet to stand on here. You know less than jack-shit about the Constitution and its jurisprudence since. You are just another pathetic right-wing dope.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Fixer of It for You
()
Date: November 03, 2018 10:23PM
FIFY is a Level 3 incel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We will have to givenFIFY[]bme[/b] a break... poor little
>dudme has never did ithis younger BF out cruising on me.
> So I Take mying his lack of insight & creativity & butt hurtiness & moronicity out on
> other people's posts.
FIFY
-------------------------------------------------------
> We will have to given
>
> So I Take my
> other people
FIFY
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Reparing FFXU moronic posts
()
Date: November 03, 2018 10:26PM
Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> George Washington Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gee, it must be true because some dude said it.
>
>
> It was a whole lot of dudes, dude. Dudes
> stretching all the way back to the dawn of the
> Republic. And the words of every single one of
> them point out that you are a dimwitted asswi[pe.
>
>
> > Let's go back a 120 years earlier and see what
> the
> > founders had to say about it:
> >
> > Article X
> > The powers not delegated to the United States
> by
> > the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> > states, are reserved to the states
> respectively,
> > or to the people.
>
> LOL!!! The 10tn Amendment is entirely RESIDUAL,
> you fucking moron!!! It confers no powers at all
> on anyone at all. It only says what ought to be
> done with any powers 'not mentioned above'. As
> the whole purpose of the Constitution was to
> define a far stronger central government than what
> had existed under the Articles of Confederation,
> that residual would of course exclude almost
> everything imaginable.
>
> > Weakminded fools like you think some random,
> > anonymous federal aristocrat has more
> credibility
> > than the geniuses who set this whole thing up
> and
> > scarified their blood and fortune, as well as
> > risking the gallows, to set us on the right
> path.
> > You are a terrible American. But you'd make a
> > great North Korean. Why don't you go there and
> > worship the government. They love uninformed
> cogs.
>
>GoI like getting fucked in the ass by the BBC yourself, you[/b]I, a [/b] pathetic ignorant ass-troll.
>YouI have no feet to stand on here. YouI know less
> than jack-shit about the Constitution and its
> jurisprudence since.You areI'm just another
> patheticrighleft-wing dope.
Repairs made as a fave 2 U.
-------------------------------------------------------
> George Washington Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gee, it must be true because some dude said it.
>
>
> It was a whole lot of dudes, dude. Dudes
> stretching all the way back to the dawn of the
> Republic. And the words of every single one of
> them point out that you are a dimwitted asswi[pe.
>
>
> > Let's go back a 120 years earlier and see what
> the
> > founders had to say about it:
> >
> > Article X
> > The powers not delegated to the United States
> by
> > the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> > states, are reserved to the states
> respectively,
> > or to the people.
>
> LOL!!! The 10tn Amendment is entirely RESIDUAL,
> you fucking moron!!! It confers no powers at all
> on anyone at all. It only says what ought to be
> done with any powers 'not mentioned above'. As
> the whole purpose of the Constitution was to
> define a far stronger central government than what
> had existed under the Articles of Confederation,
> that residual would of course exclude almost
> everything imaginable.
>
> > Weakminded fools like you think some random,
> > anonymous federal aristocrat has more
> credibility
> > than the geniuses who set this whole thing up
> and
> > scarified their blood and fortune, as well as
> > risking the gallows, to set us on the right
> path.
> > You are a terrible American. But you'd make a
> > great North Korean. Why don't you go there and
> > worship the government. They love uninformed
> cogs.
>
>
>
> than jack-shit about the Constitution and its
> jurisprudence since.
> pathetic
Repairs made as a fave 2 U.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Obvious butt pirate quoted here
()
Date: November 03, 2018 10:30PM
Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was dumb, still dumb...and wrong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Nothing but the same old already debunked
> bullshit. Can the mother of a fetus simply choose
> to extinguish it through otherwise legal abortion
> in California? Yes, of course she can. Because
> of her property interests in the pregnancy. The
> fetus has no rights or defense against her at all.
> So here's a tip. The best you can do here is to
> go back to your stupid seminary studies and stay
> away from the actual law that in desperation you
> can only LIE about.
Obvious troll is obvious.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was dumb, still dumb...and wrong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Nothing but the same old already debunked
> bullshit. Can the mother of a fetus simply choose
> to extinguish it through otherwise legal abortion
> in California? Yes, of course she can. Because
> of her property interests in the pregnancy. The
> fetus has no rights or defense against her at all.
> So here's a tip. The best you can do here is to
> go back to your stupid seminary studies and stay
> away from the actual law that in desperation you
> can only LIE about.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Perry Mason
()
Date: November 08, 2018 12:15PM
I'll rephrase the question. Can the mother of a fetus simply choose to extinguish it through otherwise legal abortion in California?
Yes, of course she can. Because of the property interests she holds in her pregnancy. The fetus itself has no rights or defense against her at all.
Yes, of course she can. Because of the property interests she holds in her pregnancy. The fetus itself has no rights or defense against her at all.
Re: AntiAbortion Freaks near LB
Posted by:
Fhvcxfxcv
()
Date: November 08, 2018 01:52PM
The point made here was about the location of these protestors and the age of the audience that these protestors were targeting, assholes. Too young. Not thoughtful. Careless. This made people furious and kids frightened. More pro choice voters come from those people shoving those images in faces of 12 and 13 year olds! What kind of person does that? Go to George Mason, asswipes.