Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 190
Thanks Tree134Thanks

Thread: Names Mike

  1. #11
    Mad Genius For Hire Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    16,339
    Thanks
    6724

    From
    Derpville USA
    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    Anyone that claims the constitution can be "adjusted" is really saying it's in the way of their agenda.

    _________
    Hi and welcome.

    Chaos is right about the constitution.....that trouble maker!
    Thanks from BitterPill, californiadecks and chaos

  2. #12
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    12

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    Wait a second: Earlier you said "any party that adheres closest to the original writings will probably get my vote," yet your point numbered two says, "The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;"

    Those two points seem to be at odds.

    Perhaps you should start a thread on the subject in the forum at large since this sub-forum is a poor place to argue our Constitution.

    Looking forward to debate should you decide to follow through.
    I can see why you need that to be at odds. It's all you can come up with. Somehow my vote for a candidate that comes closest to the document, is at odds with the 14 amendment, makes zero sense.

    _________

  3. #13
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,258
    Thanks
    26423

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    Anyone that claims the constitution can be "adjusted" is really saying it's in the way of their agenda.

    _________
    The architects of the Constitution...then. Article V.

  4. #14
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,490
    Thanks
    23892

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    The constitution can only be legally changed per the constitution. It is not intended to be changed to whatever political party has the power at the time.
    Nobody disputes this. There are disputes, but this is not their nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    I mean slavery was allowed at one time, didn't make it legal. That was proven.
    Actually, under the Constitution slavery was legal. It was not outlawed until the inception of the 13th Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    Here's the only thing the feds are allowed to spend money on or control. EVERYTHING else is to be done by the state's our local government. PERIOD! ... Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds.
    Note the provision of U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, which gives the federal courts to decide constitutional questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.
    The 14th Amendment, however, was ratified subsequent to the 10th, and therefore if there is a conflict between the two the 14th takes precedence. (For example.)

  5. #15
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    12

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    It can be adjusted. For example, in the original there was no injunction against slavery, yet our Constitution was adjusted to reflect a repudiation of slavery.
    Exactly! Hence my first post. It has to be amended per the constitution. That's by 3/4ths of the state legislatures or 2/3rds of Congress. But to say it can be changed to reflect eech generation without using the proper channels is illegal.

    _________

  6. #16
    The Covfefe are Coming! BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    7,156
    Thanks
    4684

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    I can see why you need that to be at odds. It's all you can come up with. Somehow my vote for a candidate that comes closest to the document, is at odds with the 14 amendment, makes zero sense.

    _________
    Yet the 14th amendment wasn't even in the original document, and you say you support the party that "adheres closest to the original writings."

    Naturally, I took your comment at face value.

    Was that a mistake on my part?

  7. #17
    The Covfefe are Coming! BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    7,156
    Thanks
    4684

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    Exactly! Hence my first post. It has to be amended per the constitution. That's by 3/4ths of the state legislatures or 2/3rds of Congress. But to say it can be changed to reflect eech generation without using the proper channels is illegal.

    _________
    So you aren't, in fact, a supporter of the original document.

    Fair enough.
    Thanks from DebateDrone, chaos and Friday13

  8. #18
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    12

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Nobody disputes this. There are disputes, but this is not their nature.


    Actually, under the Constitution slavery was legal. It was not outlawed until the inception of the 13th Amendment.


    Note the provision of U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, which gives the federal courts to decide constitutional questions.


    The 14th Amendment, however, was ratified subsequent to the 10th, and therefore if there is a conflict between the two the 14th takes precedence. (For example.)
    The courts have made many illegal decisions throughout our history. Even the SC.

    _________

  9. #19
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    12

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    So you aren't, in fact, a supporter of the original document.

    Fair enough.
    I didn't say I was an originalist. I am however not okay with anything that wasn't amended properly. The constitution was meant to be a bitch to change. If changed legally, it reflects the true will of the people, imo.

    _________

  10. #20
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,490
    Thanks
    23892

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    The courts have made many illegal decisions throughout our history. Even the SC.
    It is logically impossible for the Supreme Court to make an illegal decision. Again, see U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. (This goes as well for courts inferior to the SCOTUS, to the extent they have not been overruled by a higher court.) The plain text is that the federal courts decide what the Constitution means, and no one else has that authority per the doctrine of separation of powers. What you are really saying is that the courts make decisions you disagree with.

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Name Names
    By kmiller1610 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 27th February 2017, 07:19 AM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 19th September 2016, 12:20 PM
  3. Should Gillibrand name names?
    By Macduff in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11th September 2014, 04:07 AM
  4. Names!
    By Mr. Neo-Con in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18th October 2012, 01:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed