Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Hear Bob Woodward 's advice to Americans ahead of Jan. 6 hearing" video.

The Trump Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the January 6 Committee.
242
@williamlacentra2808 He was speaking of the Second Amendment which is not absolute. NO right is absolute. If you rob a bank with a LEGAL gun, are arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to prison, will you be allowed to take your LEGAL gun to prison with you? No: it only requires one exception to an "absolute" to demolish the absolute.
6
@USA92 And YOUR lack of personal/moral responsibility is nihilism.
6
@bryancrawford5512 There are no absolutes or unlimited rights. The exercise of rights is LIMITED by the RESPONSIBILITY to not violate the right of OTHERS, who have the SAME rights AS YOU.
3
@KB-ke3fi She is not the boss of the Capitol Police. Stop swallowing then vomiting right-wing anti-American hate-lies.
1
@KB-ke3fi She is not, and obviously DID NOT.
1
@KB-ke3fi If Pelosi were the "boss" of the Capitol Police, then it's obvious she ordered them to PREVENT the violent insurrectionists getting in. But tell us, anti-American PUNK: if they were "let in," then why did they BREAK WINDOWS in order to get in -- simply because gutter-thugs intent on TRASHING the Capitol? I'd ask you to ask yourself why you make no sense, but you don't know the answer to the question.
1
REPUBLICAN @nothingbutthetruth3227 Texass Gov. Abbott eliminated background checks, blocked enforcement of Federal laws, and eliminated licensing and permitting, thus making it legal for criminals to buy guns legally. Meanwhile, gun-nuts at the NRA convention couldn't even quote the Second Amendment, one of whom claimed to have gone to law school. Gun-nut = history- and law-illiterate.
1
@williamlacentra2808 "the Constitution which came first to protect State rights --is an absolute document." False: the "states' rights" ANTI-Federalists OPPOSED ratification of the Federal Constitution because of its SUPREMACY clause. "The amendments -called the bill of rights, was the individual rights bill-which amendments were and can be changed--modified or added". And several of those Amendment to the Constitution -- 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, as example, nullified and countered portions of that "absolute" document. In other words, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights/Amendments are ONE document. ---don't be confused with the permanent State Constitutional rights". Are you saying that state constitutions can't be amended? If so you're dead wrong. The Massachusetts constitution, ratified in 1780, has been amended 117 times. And the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Federal Constitution nullified any provisions in state constitutions which were contrary thereto. your PSEUDO-"LAW" is IDEOLOGY, NOT LAW.
1
@williamlacentra2808 "But the Constitution which came first to protect State rights". The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because the latter did not establish authority OVER the states. Thus the Articles Congress could only make "suggestions" to the states. But the Constitution with its SUPREMACY Clause changed all that: it was deliberately intended to establish a strong, central SUPREME gov't with control over the extent and limits of "states' rights". Every US citizen is a citizen of BOTH the United States and of their state of residence. The Federal gov't has the authority and power to protect the FEDERAL rights of citizens AGAINST STATE violations of them.
1
@ynotttt Who are you talking about?
1
@williamlacentra2808 I have an education in law, and have been researching these very issues for more than 30 years. Perhaps the "annoyance" will prompt you to not only think but to drop the bullshit anti-Americanisms you've picked up from other law-illiterates. Instead of ACTUALLY READING the Constitution with which you dumbly assume you are actually concerned. As for the "absolute" US Constitution, and how amending it works: The Constitution as originally written and ratified protected slavery. The 13th Amendment ABOLISHED slavery, thus that portion of the Constitution was nullified. As said: a single exception to an "absolute" -- to which there can be NO exceptions --demolishes the IMAGINARY "absolute". Will you next drag in "The Federalist" in effort to defend your ANTI-Federalism? If so, bring it on, and I'll provide you the facts about THAT NON-law.
1