Kobach Seeks Opinion On Guns At Polli...

Kobach Seeks Opinion On Guns At Polling Places

There are 11 comments on the WIBW-TV Topeka story from Nov 4, 2013, titled Kobach Seeks Opinion On Guns At Polling Places. In it, WIBW-TV Topeka reports that:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has asked Attorney General Derek Schmidt for a ruling on whether a new state law allowing concealed carry in most public buildings includes polling places.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WIBW-TV Topeka.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1 Nov 4, 2013
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Part of the Supreme Law of the Land. And, Secretary of State Kris Kobach, that applies on EVERY SINGLE SQUARE INCH of territory of the United States.

Now THAT was simple, now wasn't it?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4 Nov 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
nah.. subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.. that's their function DUMB $-hit.. not some inbred hillbilly like you..
WRONG, O' blinded one:

"...It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. >>>>The interpretation of the laws<<<< is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, IN FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the CONSTITUTION ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the POWER of the PEOPLE is SUPERIOR TO BOTH; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental...."

"...But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws...."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

Perhaps if you extracted your head, you'd be able to see REALITY?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#5 Nov 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
subject to interpretions by the supreme court... pretty simple isn't it?..b.whahahhahahhaha...
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#6 Nov 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
nah.. subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.. that's their function DUMB $-hit.. not some inbred hillbilly like you..
"'It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.'"--Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709. As quoted by Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court,[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."--Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;- O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#9 Nov 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
Speechless yet again, eh sycophant?
hbd

Seattle, WA

#11 Nov 6, 2013
so what?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#12 Nov 6, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
something for you to suck on
http://imageshack.us/a/img840/1161/wo00022.jp...
Reduced to child-like behavior again, eh?
SatanRules

Winter Park, FL

#13 Nov 6, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Reduced to child-like behavior again, eh?
better than being reduced to a moron like you...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#14 Nov 6, 2013
SatanRules wrote:
<quoted text>
better than being reduced to a moron like you...
Written like a true 2-year old. I bet your momma is so proud.....
SatanRules

Winter Park, FL

#15 Nov 6, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Written like a true 2-year old. I bet your momma is so proud.....
kind of busy...your momma is blowing me...says she needs money to send you to rehab....

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#16 Nov 6, 2013
SatanRules wrote:
<quoted text>
kind of busy...your momma is blowing me...says she needs money to send you to rehab....
So you're at her grave-site, eh perv? Figures that's the only way you can get any ... from the dead.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Should they teach this in schools? Aug 14 okimar 3
News FPC Vows Legal Action on Approved California As... Aug 4 jimwildrickjr 1
News WVa AG: Manchin Should Resign Dem Leadership Role Aug 4 JohnInLa 3
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 31 Red Crosse 185
History of the .233 Remington Jul 31 SummerBB8 1
News Heidi Harris: CCW's On The Rise Jul 29 Get Out 2
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Jul 25 Been There Done That 4
More from around the web