FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

The Constitution is the product of aristocrats. "The common man" had no voice at all. When George Washington was elected, only 6% of the population was eligible to vote (mostly rich white protestants.)

The voter pool at the time was comprised by the standards of the time. This document was subjected to the approval of the people, as are all amendments. Your demand that today's standards must be applied in order for the validation to be considered democratic is in line with your customary cluelessness.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

an amendment to the Constitution is an instruction to the court.
This is beyond debate, but of course since I said it you must disagree.

Even tho u said it, it is still correct, Hawkeye.
It is indeed an instruction to the court;
however, historical accuracy requires us to take cognizance
of the court 's failure to comply which has last lasted for many decades,
including cases in precedent that were gross insults to our intelligence
like Barron v. Baltimore, the Slaughterhouse Cases and Wickard v. Filburn.

As Judge Bork said during his confirmation hearings,
the 9th Amendment is treated as tho there were a stain over it,
such as to render it illegible (rather than to attribute to it its facial meaning).

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Not at all. You are woefully ignorant of the constitution and it's application throughout history. Senators are only chosen by popular vote because the constitution was amended, and Representatives could still legally be chosen by electors chosen by any method which the legislature of any of the states might chose.

Article One, Section Two, first paragraph:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.[/quote]

So, for example if a state chose to make property ownership a requirement to be an elector in that state, it would then perfectly constitutional for the requirement to extend to the election of members of the House of Representatives from that state. Your claim is not even inferentially true.

Furthermore, there is the amendment process itself. Once again, the constitutional provisions for the choice of Representatives gives the lie to your claim, because it would require two thirds of the members of the House to approve a constitutional amendment before it were sent to the states for ratification, and the states can ratify by convention rather than either plebiscite or vote of the legislature.

Article Five of the constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

(I have omitted the final sentence which deals with the slave trade and the number of Senators.)

You don't know a goddamned thing about the constitution, that's clear.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

and even though you seem to be insane the court making a bad ruling is not terminal, as we the people are free to correct it. I dont mind your dance about getting your way on this ruling, it will not stand.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Once again, nothing in the constitution guarantees democratic rule.

Bullshit...the amendment provision makes it a democratic instrument.

Structurally, America was never a democracy,
nor was it ever intended to be. It is a democratic republic.

In early American history, some New England towns were democracies.
I am confident that none of them function that way anymore.

David

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

This is a good point. "We the People" meant adult white males and in many states they were required to meet a property qualification. No women, no Indians, no blacks--and many could allege inequalities even today. People under the age of 18 can allege that the system is not democratic because they are excluded from the vote. Additionally, in many states those who have been convicted of a felony are debarred from the voting booth. Rapist Boy is always on about girls under the age of 18 being denied their inalienable right to be humped by sweaty, hairy middle aged men, but, apparently he is not concerned that they're not allowed to vote.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

and even though you seem to be insane the court making a bad ruling is not terminal,
as we the people are free to correct it. I dont mind your dance
about getting your way on this ruling, it will not stand.

Nonsense, about it not standing.
The proper status quo ante was restored, as logic inexorably required it to be.

If the First Amendment were overthrown by McCain-F.,
then NO part of the Constitution woud be safe.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Not at all. You are woefully ignorant of the constitution and it's application throughout history. Senators are only chosen by popular vote because the constitution was amended, and Representatives could still legally be chosen by electors chosen by any method which the legislature of any of the states might chose.

as if that matters if true....the states were informed that the only way they could ratify the Constitution was by way of a convention, the provision for electing Senators has nothing to do with ratifying the Constitution....nor my claim that the people had to approve it.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The rulings demonstrate the extent to which ideology " not fidelity to precedent or a particular interpretation of the Constitution " is the driving force on the court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals

Quote:

Nonsense, about it not standing.
The proper status quo ante was restored, as logic inexorably required it to be.

If the First Amendment were overthrown by McCain-F.,
then NO part of the Constitution woud be safe.

Your opinion is not shared by all.

Also, many commentators have come to the conclusion that this ruling is inconsistent with itself, that the arguments upholding the ruling are illogical.

0 Replies

Your claim that "the people" had to ratify is nonsense. Once again, only adult white males could vote, and the states determined the definition of adult, and were free as well to require property qualifications for the franchise. You're the only one here who is dancing.

1 Reply

Additionally, of course (although you're probably the only one here who needs to have this explained to him), the states were free to establish the process by which members of the conventions were chose, and the qualifications of electors of members of the conventions. Your claim about democracy simply is not supported by any historical evidence.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Oh, it's true. Read the constitution--you'll be much better off in a debate if you actually are familiar with the material about which you are debating. The point about the Senate is that amending the constitution requires the participation of the Senate, and until 1913, the states were not required to choose Senators by popular election.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your claim that "the people" had to ratify is nonsense. Once again, only adult white males could vote, and the states determined the definition of adult, and were free as well to require property qualifications for the franchise

that was the definition of "the people" of that time. The fathers of America put the constitution to the will of the people to the extent that putting a measure to the will of the people was known at that time. Your insistence that they did not is grossly unfair to the people of that time, which given your intellectual abilities can only come about by way of willful hostility.

But has we all know, you are a hostile person, both to the living and the dead.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

ah yes,
The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.

* $2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
* $30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
* $10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
* $5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee

Aggregate Total -- $115,500 per two-year election cycle as follows:

* $45,600 per two-year cycle to candidates
* $69,000 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs

How much does Rupert Murdoch spend? Bill Gates? Ted Turner? Warren Buffet? Should they really be uniquely qualified to spend more than others? Why?

To shut the NRA up, is it worth shutting up the NAACP?

Should Michael Moore have been prevented from bashing Bush in Fahrenheit 911? How is that any different than bashing Hillary in "the book"?

Should a 500 page book be banned because a character voices a political opinion?

Does anyone really think the politicians in government are pushing these laws for any purpose other than political advantage over their foes?

Some really smart guys mandated that "NO LAW" should be made that restricts free speech, because 2 centuries ago, they already knew politicians could never be trusted to restrict it evenhandedly. And they were right. NO means NO!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You know nothing of the kind. I am hostile to you, which is a result of your disgusting attitude toward girls and women. I have no hostility toward the dead, that's nonsense.

You have been whining that we have a democratic government. By any reasonable definition of democratic, we do not, and have not had throughout history. Amendments XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIV and XXVI have all been amendments which have expanded or more narrowly defined the franchise, and to that extent, have extended the democratic nature of this republic. Which doesn't alter the undeniable fact that the constitution guarantees a republic, not a democracy.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

and even though you seem to be insane the court making a bad ruling is not terminal, as we the people are free to correct it. I dont mind your dance about getting your way on this ruling, it will not stand.

When pigs fly. Pity you're a pathetic coward hiding behind a fake name and avatar, or I'd make you a wager on this idiotic statement. This ruling will indeed stand.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

ah yes,
The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.

* $2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
* $30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
* $10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
* $5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee

Aggregate Total -- $115,500 per two-year election cycle as follows:

* $45,600 per two-year cycle to candidates
* $69,000 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs

How much does Rupert Murdoch spend? Bill Gates? Ted Turner? Warren Buffet? Should they really be uniquely qualified to spend more than others? Why?

To shut the NRA up, is it worth shutting up the NAACP?

Should Michael Moore have been prevented from bashing Bush in Fahrenheit 911? How is that any different than bashing Hillary in "the book"?

Should a 500 page book be banned because a character voices a political opinion?

Does anyone really think the politicians in government are pushing these laws for any purpose other than political advantage over their foes?

Some really smart guys mandated that "NO LAW" should be made that restricts free speech, because 2 centuries ago, they already knew politicians could never be trusted to restrict it evenhandedly. And they were right. NO means NO!

SO STIPULATED, Bill.

David

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

It's a mystery to me, O'Bill, why this clown thinks that the constitution will be amended just because he says it must be. It seems to me that he has no clue about just what a difficult procedure amending the constitution is.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

YOU can be chairman of the committee for repealing the First Amendment, Hawkeye.

I m not going to worry about it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Amending the constitution to redefine what an individual is would not repeal any Amendment. Likewise, adding in a defined rights of corporations would not repeal any amendment.

1 Reply

FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know