And I don't disagree with you. I mean, I know what it says. I'm just saying it's never been challenged. So it may appear as though the power is unlimited, but that can be challenged. And the court would have to rule on that so, and that's their job is to interpret the Constitution and make rulings.
You can disagree that is fine. I know what the language says and it appears cut and dry. That doesn't mean it cannot be challenged, and I am not the only one who says this. Constitutional attorneys have also said this. There is no way to know what the outcome will be because it has never been challenged. That is the point.
The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" but I can't own a machine gun so just because something appears a certain way doesn't mean it will be that way.
I suggest studying the case law on this (Ex parte Garland) or, ideally, taking a Constitutional law class . The Supreme Court long ago issued a decision on this matter affirming exactly what the Constitution says. You are simply wrong on the law here but believe what you would like. As the old Simon and Garfunkel song says, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Yeah I listen to Constitutional attorneys and will continue to believe them over someone on an online forum. No disrespect. There are many parts of the Constitution that are clear in their wording are not followed. 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, 6th Amendment, 10th Amendment. I could go on. Most of the Administrative state that has existed for 60 years is completely unconstitutional. Again it may say that, but it has never been challenged which is the point. You may be 100% correct in that it will stand and the President has full authority, but that is not my point, it never was... Maybe you should go back and read what I said.
And I don't disagree with you. I mean, I know what it says. I'm just saying it's never been challenged. So it may appear as though the power is unlimited, but that can be challenged. And the court would have to rule on that so, and that's their job is to interpret the Constitution and make rulings.
I disagree, as written it is unchallengeable, there is nothing to interpret. There is clearly only one exception and no other.
You can disagree that is fine. I know what the language says and it appears cut and dry. That doesn't mean it cannot be challenged, and I am not the only one who says this. Constitutional attorneys have also said this. There is no way to know what the outcome will be because it has never been challenged. That is the point.
The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" but I can't own a machine gun so just because something appears a certain way doesn't mean it will be that way.
I suggest studying the case law on this (Ex parte Garland) or, ideally, taking a Constitutional law class . The Supreme Court long ago issued a decision on this matter affirming exactly what the Constitution says. You are simply wrong on the law here but believe what you would like. As the old Simon and Garfunkel song says, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Yeah I listen to Constitutional attorneys and will continue to believe them over someone on an online forum. No disrespect. There are many parts of the Constitution that are clear in their wording are not followed. 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, 6th Amendment, 10th Amendment. I could go on. Most of the Administrative state that has existed for 60 years is completely unconstitutional. Again it may say that, but it has never been challenged which is the point. You may be 100% correct in that it will stand and the President has full authority, but that is not my point, it never was... Maybe you should go back and read what I said.