What was the WORST year in history?

1803

Close three-way tie between 1453, 1815 and 1914.

And why?

>inb4 1945

1945

1789.

You shut your whore mouth. Washington was a pgood president.

1944

1824

Uhhh I don't know. Probably 1968.

Either 0AD or 0BC

2018

my niggah

Whenever God told the Jews they were special.
/Thread

>implying jews are the people god was talking about

1348

The year humans evolved

1672

>how christians rationalize their antisemitism

0 AD was way worse than 0 BC

But user, I am an atheist and I rationalize my antisemetism by not being a brainlet and thinking that individuals should be judged for the actions of others.
Those who hate all jews typically do so because they do not believe it is wise or prudent to do otherwise as it lets the jews which they have justification for dislike for 'slip into the crowd' so to speak.
Personally I am 'antisemetic' because I don't like communists, political subversion, cabals, marxism, leftism, statism, pseudoscience, jewish culture, jewish 'humor', orthodox judaism, revisionism, israel, and zionists.
Basically I am an 'antisemite' because I hate too many jews and jewish things, not that I have a arbitrary hatred for jews in general.

I just hate those who act/believe a certain way. Do you actually believe it to be wrong to judge a person for their choices?

It's interesting that we allow the judiciary to settle confusion in the law, isn't it a bit of a violation of the separation of powers?

FP BP

Well who else should do it then?

He was a power hungry hypocrite.

The legislative sets the law, they should solve evrything regarding to confusion unless there is doubt about constitutionality

631 AD to 651 AD are the worst years ever.

It is the essence of separation of powers. One branch writes law, another branch executes law, and the third branch interprets law.

For America: 1968.

>the third branch interprets law
And that is only because some commie faggots in 1803 said the constitution said they could say that they could say saying that it was one of their powers made it one of their powers.

The judiciary is to interpret whether a law was violated, not what the laws are.

>And that is only because some commie faggots in 1803 said the constitution said they could say that they could say saying that it was one of their powers made it one of their powers.
Don't be dense. Judicial review existed in a common law system that was older than America itself. You'll note that Article three "invests" a pre-existing power rather than creating a previously absent one. Hell, judge made law is older than legislative made law; the idea that Marbury vs Madison invented rather than simply formalized judicial review is just stupid.

>The judiciary is to interpret whether a law was violated, not what the laws are.
Then why didn't the founding fathers object to common law systems in general, where the judiciary does indeed have that kind of power. Why did the statutization of very important laws like criminal codes against murder, theft, rape, etc. not come around until the 19th century?

If that was unclear let me put it this way.
Marshal used judicial review to grant himself the power of judical review.

>the idea that Marbury vs Madison invented rather than simply formalized judicial review is just stupid.
The constitution denies the state any power that it is not explicitly granted. Scotus said "nu-uh" and then ruined america for everyone.

Let me put it this way. You are retarded. Judicial review is part and parcel of a common law system and is older than the constitution itself. There was no pint at any stage in the revolution , in the federalist papers, or in the constitutional conventions where ANYONE indicated they were making such a drastic break with the fundamental jurispruditional system they were still using.

>The constitution denies the state any power that it is not explicitly granted. Scotus said "nu-uh" and then ruined america for everyone.
Incorrect. If that were the case, the entire constitution would be meaningless, as many of its core terms are undefined. The second amendment is meaningless, because nobody can say explicitly what "arms" are. The fourth amendment is meaningless, because what the fuck is a "warrant" or what meets "Probable cause", are never explicitly defined. You have no meaning for very important terms in article 1 section 8 like what "Taxes" "Imposts" "general welfare" "Commerce" "Bankruptcy" "Road" "Science" or "Arts" are.1, 8, 10 is especially meaningless, because while Congress is explicitly given the right to define "Piracies" and "Felonies", that power could necessarily not vest unless someone defines what those things are so that Congress is legally allowed to define them.

>first paragraph
"you didn't say it wasn't one of our powers, despite that being the nature of the entire constitution"
Don't care.

>second paragraph
>defining terms
Yeah, they really dropped the ball on that one.

>they lack the power to define terms
Well unless you want to act like an epistemology faggot, that is covered by article 1 section 8.
And if you do want to be an epistemology commie faggot, then the courts don't have the power to define the words in order to have the power to exist in order to have the power to define the words.

>"you didn't say it wasn't one of our powers, despite that being the nature of the entire constitution"
Except it isn't the nature of the "entire constitution" and nobody but idiots says that.

>Yeah, they really dropped the ball on that one.
Or, you know, they went with one of the core tenets of the common law system they were relying for the bulk of their actual (non codified) law, and it was completely understood that the judiciary defined these terms.

>And if you do want to be an epistemology commie faggot, then the courts don't have the power to define the words in order to have the power to exist in order to have the power to define the words.
Yes they do. Article 3, investing power, common law system, yada yada yada.

Do you even understand what a common law system means?

1793, Those thugs already had their republic but it wasn't enough.

>Yes they do. Article 3, investing power, common law system, yada yada yada.
But those words aren't defined. And how can meaningless words grant to power to define terms?
They first need to power to define terms in order to have the power to exist.

>Do you even understand what a common law system means?
Yes. Do you understand that it doesn't include legislation?

Under your proposed system it is logically impossible for the judiciary the exist and the constitution to have any real meaning.

Yes, but does it include penumbras and emanations?

Not inherently, no.
Penumbras don't mater and are completely irrelevant because the 9th and 10th amendments.

1177 BC

you don't know me but you don't like me, how does that make you any different from those you call brainlets?

>But those words aren't defined.
I'm not the one arguring that only what is explicitly written into the constitution can be applied to it. Yes, those words aren't defined, but we have, as part of a larger, common law system, a group of people who does the defining, namely the judiciary.

>Yes. Do you understand that it doesn't include legislation?
But it does include the creation of law through stare decisis. Which is itself a form of judicial review.

No, under "my" (not really mine, it's the system we have in practice today), the constitution means what the judiciary interprets it to mean. Which is, incidentally, how it works in every other constitutional nation as well as the United States as well.

1993

1812, followed closely by 1814 and then 1815.

Interpreting the law is the same as making it.

>1453
>1517
>1812
>1914
>1979
>1989

Well, I didn't dislike you personally until you cried out in pain as you struck. That is the only way your actions can be described because I clearly stated that I hate jews for their actions, not because they are jews, and that individuals should not be judged by the collective.

>how does that make you any different from those you call brainlets?
See my post ya brainlet.

>the constitution means what the judiciary interprets it to mean.
Not acording to the constitution.

>Which is, incidentally, how it works in every other constitutional nation
And almost every other constitutional nation explicitly grants powers for the sake of granting powers, not for the sake of denying powers not granted. Apples and oranges.

>the United States as well.
Yes.
But it is not how the system itself says it should work. Just because an injustice is being done does not mean it is not an injustice.

>2018
>-25
It checks out.

1914

2016 when Drumpf won

...

Guys, I'm a little confused.
If 1984 started in 1984 and hasn't stopped yet, does it count as 25+ years ago?

into what?

1990

Goodnight, sweet prince.

This desu

>commie faggots
What did he mean by this?

44 BC

I meant that they were faggots, and their actions were those one would expect a communist to make.

1914

No matter what you believe there is no way anything good for humanity came from WWI.

1918

// The 'german' revolt of 1918

1348 most likely since you had no idea what was happening or how to stop it.

Whenever the Laurentian Ice shield collapsed.

Laurentide*..
Autocorrect

410 AD

That's more of a consequence of common law than separation of powers. Making precedent binding essentially gives legislative power to judges.

This is also a good one, the black plague ruined the equilibrium of the best european politcal system man has ever achieved.

So you're basically judging people before they even committed a crime?
Only a brainlet could not get why that kind of thinking is dangerous and frowned upon

So you're basically judging people before they even committed a crime?
Only a brainlet could not get why that kind of thinking is dangerous and frowned upon
And I say that as an arab so I have plenty of valid reasons to hate jews indescriminatly

1618, start of thirty years war.

>Not acording to the constitution.
Yes, according to the constitution.

>And almost every other constitutional nation explicitly grants powers for the sake of granting powers, not for the sake of denying powers not granted. Apples and oranges.
Nope

>But it is not how the system itself says it should work. Just because an injustice is being done does not mean it is not an injustice.
Yes it is. It is part and parcel of adopting a common law system, which you'll note NOBODY was saying they should change.

1488.

This

>faggots
I don't think you know what that word means

>their actions were those one would expect a communist to make
Last time I checked, the Anti-Federalists were the more egalitarian side of the early US. Though, of course, communism didn't even exist for another 50 years.

>the Anti-Federalists were the more egalitarian side of the early US
And the 'anti-federalist' judge/s decided that somehow giving the federal government ultimate authority over everything was a good idea.

>Though, of course, communism didn't even exist for another 50 years.
Re-examine the literal meaning of my words instead of what you infer them to mean.

>I don't think you know what that word means
The same to you.

275 BC
Assassination of the last competent Roman Emperor

>the 'anti-federalist' judges
Pretty sure John Marshall was an open supporter of the Federalist party. I don't know why anyone would claim otherwise, unless they didn't actually know what they were talking about.

The literal meaning of the caption of your pic in the OP is "gay people who are also communists* acted in such a manner as to make the Constitution of the United States trivial"

*communists- either a) members of the Communsit Party, b) people who follow the ideas of Karl Marx and his successors, or c) people who profess an ideology emphasizing the collective over the group

The Marshall Court is literally none of the above.

1492. It was the beginning of the end for white people.

1526

whatever year Moscow came to exist

>hurr durr Washington wuz a tyrant
>constantly tries to restrict his own power and willingly retired instead of rule the country forever

Yeah, that's a contender.

I'd also say 1348.

Again?! What the hell is it with people not knowing how the calendar works?! This is the second time i've had to explain this.

THERE WAS NO YEAR 0
1 BC WAS FOLLOWED BY AD 1
YOU'RE ON A HISTORY BOARD, LEARN YOUR GODDAMN CALENDAR

>THERE WAS NO YEAR 0
When the robots overthrow us they will have a year 0 because computers index from 0 onward.

but sadly we don't use a robot calendar

1789. Search your feelings, deep inside you know it to be true.

what bad thing happened then? The french revolution?

the moment europe died

circa 610
1517
1789
1917

>Being this much of a brainlet

That picture's pretty cool until you realize how many of them are overweight.