# The Constitution and the Minimum Wage



## DGS49 (Apr 25, 2016)

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have.  Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.

And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).

Therefore, I maintain that we all have a "constitutional" right to sell our effort and services to anyone else we want, on any terms and conditions we might choose to stipulate.

So, for example, if I am in need to a place to live, I might arrange with the owner of an apartment building to get the use of an apartment in exchange for performing janitorial services and maintenance on the building.  No money changes hands.  This is perfectly legal, and in fact the imputed rent savings is taxable "income" for me.

But minimum wage laws trample all over the right of contract.  If I have certain work that I want to have done by someone else, and I find someone who is willing and able to do that work for the wage that I'm willing to pay, where does the U.S. Federal government get the power to tell us - both of us - that this contract may not be consummated?  Are MW laws "regulation of interstate commerce"?  Of course not!  Someone is sweeping off the sidewalk in front of my store for $5.  It's $5 that I am willing to pay, the he is willing to accept, in exchange for the work.  We will both pay the applicable taxes in due course.

In addition to being economically stupid, Federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional.

And of course, (a) if a "higher" minimum wage is a good idea, why are you taking many years to implement it? Why not immediately?   and (b)  If $15 is good, then why not $20 or $25?  Wouldn't that be better?


----------



## Fair&Balanced (Apr 25, 2016)

Minimum wage laws are not unconstitutional simply because they have been shoved under the "commerce clause" exception. Agree or disagree with that, either way though the logic of saying that makes it constitutional is sound.

As for the argument of "why $15 and not $100?" that's just childish. How much do you make a year? $40k? Why not $100K? Oh that's right because one can support a REASONABLE wage increase whilst disagreeing with an unreasonable one.


----------



## DGS49 (May 10, 2016)

Arsenic is harmless, if the dosage is small enough.  So is it wise to take an arguably "safe" dose?  Or would it be better to avoid arsenic altogether?

EVERY economist knows that if a MW is "too high" it does more harm than good.

Enough said.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 10, 2016)

It is called the* Commerce Clause* . Of course, you conservative losers would support slavery, child labor and mistreatment of the workers as we see in Africa and Asia...So this doesn't surprise me.

The congress has a lot of power! The constitution is a document of No's, not one so much of what the congress can't do beyond that. You conservatives just want to go back to the articles, don't you, lol!

The *Commerce Clause* describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, *Clause* 3). The *clause* states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate *Commerce* with foreign Nations, and *among the several States, *and with the Indian Tribes."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 11, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have.  Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.
> 
> And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).
> 
> ...


“Therefore, I maintain that we all have a "constitutional" right to sell our effort and services to anyone else we want, on any terms and conditions we might choose to stipulate.

But minimum wage laws trample all over the right of contract.”

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not by wrongheaded reactionary conservatives on a message board.  

The minimum wage is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

In _West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish_ (1937) the Supreme Court held that minimum wage laws do not manifest as a “[d]eprivation of liberty to contract,” and are consequently perfectly Constitutional, in no way ‘violating’ the Ninth Amendment.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 11, 2016)

Clayton, it is obvious that conservatives don't care about the functions of our constitution or the case law that drives it. It is truly sad that we have so many stupid people voting for the 19th century.


----------



## Friends (May 19, 2016)

A strict adherence to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments would require most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation that was passed during the twentieth century to be overturned. That legislation is popular with the voters. The United States Supreme Court has had the good sense to ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 20, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have.  Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.
> 
> And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).
> 
> ...



Dear DGS49 if you use Federal Reserve Notes with businesses that signed up to be under State authority and laws when they registered their operations in that State,
these might be bound by tax laws and other standards issued by state or federal authorities.

Now, for independent currency, the main laws that apply
1. the bills have to be smaller in size than a one dollar federal note but larger in denomination
2. the currency is restricted geographically and can't be used online to cross over into other states for example
3. the same state or federal taxes apply to income and exchanges using local currency, but the state and federal govt requires govt currency.
Introducing HOUR Money
the Ithaca Hours system used to be based on 10 an hour and 20 for doctors and lawyers that had additional state and govt fees to pay.

I think if we started using the work study programs in schools, where some work is done for course credit under paid internships
and room/board/health care could be provided as part of the package, then the wage issue could be negotiated for training wages
if the costs of living is also reduced and subsidized while the work is done within a safe supervised community campus system.

If we are going to convert from sweatshop slave labor to livable working wages,
I suggest using the campus model and bartering services and labor so nobody is exploited while the econnomy grows.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/campus94.html
Earned Amnesty


----------



## Centinel (Jun 5, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The minimum wage is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.



A minimum wage law is necessary and proper to carry into execution congress' enumerated power to regulate commerce among the several states?? How is a minimum wage law even related to commerce among the several states, much less necessary for regulating this commerce?


----------



## regent (Jun 5, 2016)

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 5, 2016)

The Minimum Wage GUARANTEES that I have to pay more in Taxes to keep poor people from parading into neighborhoods with mansions and burning them to the ground with the owners locked in them.


----------



## Ozone (Jun 5, 2016)

if for whatever reason the congress says that a minimum wage is necessary and proper, then the congress can establish the minimum wage.


----------



## Centinel (Jun 6, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.


So the delegates to the constitutional convention had not idea what they were writing?
The state ratifying conventions had no idea what they were ratifying?


----------



## Centinel (Jun 6, 2016)

Ozone said:


> if for whatever reason the congress says that a minimum wage is necessary and proper, then the congress can establish the minimum wage.



Necessary and proper to carry into execution which of its enumerated powers?


----------



## regent (Jun 13, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.
> ...


In Marbury the Court decided it would determine what the Constitution says, and the nation has now accepted that decision.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

Matthew said:


> It is called the* Commerce Clause* . Of course, you conservative losers would support slavery, child labor and mistreatment of the workers as we see in Africa and Asia...So this doesn't surprise me.
> 
> The congress has a lot of power! The constitution is a document of No's, not one so much of what the congress can't do beyond that. You conservatives just want to go back to the articles, don't you, lol!
> 
> The *Commerce Clause* describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, *Clause* 3). The *clause* states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate *Commerce* with foreign Nations, and *among the several States, *and with the Indian Tribes."



It's probably a good thing such laws are in place.  It allows a moron like you with $2/hours skills to make far more than your sorry ass will ever be worth.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Clayton, it is obvious that conservatives don't care about the functions of our constitution or the case law that drives it. It is truly sad that we have so many stupid people voting for the 19th century.



It's obvious the only reason you support a minimum wage is so you'll get paid more than the skills you offer are worth.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> The Minimum Wage GUARANTEES that I have to pay more in Taxes to keep poor people from parading into neighborhoods with mansions and burning them to the ground with the owners locked in them.



The 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES that when the idiots try, those of us in those neighborhoods can teach the smart ones a lesson to not make the same mistake.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.



So if SCOTUS says that the 1st Amendment says we all have to report to forced labor camps, then that is the Constitution?

The Constitution is written in plain language, much to the chagrin of the left. The Constitution means what it says, based on the words that were ratified by the many states 

Consent of the governed is a concept that offends the left, and a dictatorial SCOTUS who's very utterance is law, fits with the tyranny the left seeks to impose. Marbury v. Madison usurped significant power for the court, in that the court may through judicial review decide the constitutionality of LAWS. As spurious as this is, it is a LONG way from your claim that the SCOTUS defines the Constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2016)

regent said:


> [
> In Marbury the Court decided it would determine what the Constitution says, and the nation has now accepted that decision.



Uh no, it sure didn't, sparky.


----------



## regent (Jun 13, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


What is "it"?


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.
> ...


I agree with you, at least I wish I could.

It used to be that the ammendment process was used for changes to the constitution.

The ammendment process was used for the following changes:
All races (even blacks) get to vote
Women get to vote
Prohibition
Repeal of Prohibition
President limited to two terms
Voting age is 18 and above.

The above list is not all inclusive.
Recently, right or wrong, same sex marriage was made law by a supreme court ruling.  The equal protection clause (14 ammendment I beleive) was used as a basis.  Abortion was made also made the law by supreme court ruling.  When our supreme court makes a ruling and sets a precendent, it effectively has the power of an ammendment to the constitution.  While it's true that an ammendment can overrule a supreme court ruling, the process is so arduous and so seldom happens that each ruling of the Supreme Court has the effect of rewriting the constitution.  In effect, the constitution says what the Supreme  Court says it says.

Women were given the right to vote through constitutional ammendment.  The same could had been accomplish if the Supreme Court had ruled that women have the right to vote.


----------



## regent (Jun 13, 2016)

How many amendments to the Constitution would we have if we had to amend for every interpretation? Alabama has amended its constitution over 800 times, and still going.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Women were not given the right to vote through an amendment.  The actual wording says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Okay!  So what was the women's suffrage movement about?
When you consider the exact  wording of the amendment with the history that women were denied voting rights, not men, then that amendment did give women the right to vote.  I suppose you could also say it gave people that are neither male nor female the right to vote.
Don't be surprised if I choose to ignore any further nit-picking of the point you attempted to make.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 13, 2016)

Fair&Balanced said:


> Minimum wage laws are not unconstitutional simply because they have been shoved under the "commerce clause" exception. Agree or disagree with that, either way though the logic of saying that makes it constitutional is sound.
> 
> As for the argument of "why $15 and not $100?" that's just childish. How much do you make a year? $40k? Why not $100K? Oh that's right because one can support a REASONABLE wage increase whilst disagreeing with an unreasonable one.




Its not childish, it is proving a point to you economically illiterate dumb ass liberals.


No matter what fucking dollar an hour minimum wage is.....


*You are still making minimum wage


You are still bottom of the fucking ladder poor.




*


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Your answer proves you don't know how the election process works.  

I wouldn't be surprised if you ignore it.  Most idiots don't want to learn the truth.

Next thing you'll tell me is the 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Okay! Explain please.  Where did I go wrong.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Since the Constitution was written, STATES have dictated who could vote, the registration process within the State such as how long before an election it must occur, etc.  For example, to be able to vote in my State, I have to have registered 30 days or more prior to the election.    The federal government had very little say with that process.

The 19th Amendment, the one you claim granted women the right to vote, didn't do that.  To say it did would mean that prior to 1920 no woman had ever voted.  That's not true.  As I said, 8 states has already allowed women to vote with Wyoming doing so as early as 1890.  What the 19th Amendment did, although it didn't take away from STATES still controlling things related to who could vote, said that sex could not be used as a factor in limiting voting.  

Same with the 15th Amendment.  It didn't grant blacks the rights to vote.  It said race and previous condition of servitude could not be used as a factor to limiting voting.  It the 15th actually did for blacks what you say the 19th did for women, Jim Crow laws wouldn't have kept blacks from voting.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You make some good points.  That being said, the 19th ammendment did force the remaining states to not deny women the right to vote based on sex (being women).  You have a ton of historians to convince if you don't want the 19th ammendment to be considered the women's suffrage amendment which provided women the right to vote for the entire country.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



It didn't grant women the right to vote since women in 8 states already had the right to vote.  

You're an idiot if you think the 19th did grant women the right to vote.  Perhaps you should study history instead of your colon by pulling your head out of your ass.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Would you be happier if I say the 19th ammendment "guarantees" women the right to vote.
America's Historical Documents


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



It's still not a guarantee just like the 15th didn't guarantee blacks the ability to vote.  

There are no guarantees.  It simply said a State couldn't use sex as a way to limit voting.  States proved they could get around what you call a guarantee with Jim Crow laws.  Are you willing to say every woman that wanted to vote after the 19th Amendment was able to vote?


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Well please take this issue up with the official historical website that I linked to in the previous post.  Millions of people are being misinformed and it is your civil duty as an American to correct this.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Someone needs to take it up with whatever dumbass you had as a teacher that taught you that it did.  I bet you think Lincoln freed the slaves, too.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Well, I suggest you get the official national archives corrected before you start working on the high school teachers.  Good news, my high school history teacher has long retired so you don't really need to bother with him.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 13, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



You're the result of his inadequacy in teaching.


----------



## Fair&Balanced (Jun 13, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Fair&Balanced said:
> 
> 
> > Minimum wage laws are not unconstitutional simply because they have been shoved under the "commerce clause" exception. Agree or disagree with that, either way though the logic of saying that makes it constitutional is sound.
> ...


No shit moron but we can control where the bottom is.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


From the national archives  website that I linked earlier.


"Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle; victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920."


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

Fair&Balanced said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair&Balanced said:
> ...


And the market will in a short amount of time adjust such that the minimum wage is still not considered a living wage.


----------



## The Professor (Jun 14, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.
> ...



Regent was right. When it comes to the Constitution of the United States, the document means exactly what the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) says it means. What you or I or anyone else thinks it means is irrelevant. The founding fathers may have written the words, but SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the document, and there is no appeal from their decision. In other words, their case law IS the Constitution

There are many examples, but I will give you just one for now. There is nothing in the Constitution that remotely addresses the issue of abortion. So, how could a woman have a Constitutional right to an abortion when the Document is silent regarding the matter? The answer is Roe versus Wade … case law.

It gets even stranger. The case law which gave a woman the right to an abortion was based upon a right of privacy which was also created by case law! There is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution, and the SCOTUS said as much. The Court basically opined that although there was no language specific to a right to privacy, there was “penumbra” effect” of the articulated rights which included an unspoken right of privacy. The SCOTUS created a right to privacy even though no such provision was articulated in the Constitution. The following are the relevant portions of GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT – 381 U.S. 470 (decided June 7, 1965).

“*I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights.* My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding” (highlights my own).

“Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family - a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization -surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, *there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution”* (Highlights my own).

“*The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not.* There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.'" (Justices Black's dissenting opinion Joined by Justice Stewart, highlights my own).

Conclusion: It was not what the founding fathers wrote that granted women the right to abortion; rather it was the decision of the SCOTUS. Did the framers of the Constitution believe in a constitutional right to abortion as opposed to leaving the issue to the individual states to resolve?  I don't have a clue. Nor does anyone else.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

The Professor said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


I have a clue, but it is only a clue so I could be wrong.  The clue is the 10th ammendment which I paraphrase as stating that powers not given to the federal goverment are given to the states and the people.


----------



## The Professor (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Good point!


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



It guarantees a state can't use sex as a means by which they can refuse to let someone vote.  Read what the Amendment says not what some academic wrote dumbing it down for an idiot like you.  

High school textbooks says Lincoln freed the slaves.  Do you believe that?


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Before the ammendment some/most of the states denied women the right to vote.  After the ammendment women in all of the states could legally vote.  Cause and effect!  You are nit-picking this thing to death.

You have many academics/historians to correct.  The official U.S. government archives, most U.S. history text books have it all wrong according to you.  I guess I will just continue being an idiot as you call me.  You are such a nice and polite person.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 14, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court



Stupidity defined.  Dred Scott comes to mind as an example.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have.  Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.
> 
> And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).
> 
> ...



Agreed. But the sad fact is that most voters don't recognize the importance of economic freedom.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 14, 2016)

The Professor said:


> The founding fathers may have written the words, but SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the document, and there is no appeal from their decision.



Wrong.  Congress has two options. They can either write another law that is worded differently and hope that the Supreme Court lets it stand, or they can pass a constitutional amendment. If a constitutional amendment is passed, the Supreme Court has no way to overturn it.

The people, of course, can override the SCOTUS anytime they choose via simple non-compliance..


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



The 19th Amendment didn't grant women the right to vote no matter how simple minded you want to make it.  The wording of the Amendment didn't use the word "women" or "female".  

If you believe that the 19th Amendment claims what you say it claims, are you willing to say that the 15th amendment, something worded the same as with race/color/previous servitude rather than sex as the condition meant all blacks could legally vote?  

You'll continue being an idiot because you think the way you do.  

I'm nice or polite to someone unwilling to learn.  If you want to be stupid, I'll treat you the way stupid people need to be treated.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Oh my goodness!  I'm expecting Allen Funk to show up anytime to tell me that we are on candid camera.  Your argument is looney.  The two sexes are male and female.  Prior to the 15th ammendment women in most of the states were denied voting purely base on sex, because they were not men, because they were women.  The 15th ammendment put an end to this.

Go ahead and insult me again ( because I know you will want to have the last word), and then go away.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



You don't know which amendment is which.

My argument refutes any claim you have that the 19th Amendment granted the right to women to vote.    It didn't grant women the right to vote it only stated sex could not be used as a means to keep people from voting.  Read it, moron.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Thanks.  You finally corrected me on something. You are right, it's the 19th.


And since sex was previously a means of keeping women from voting, it in effect gave women the right to vote by removing that obstacle.

I'm sorry that this very simple logic excapes you.  You are trying to split a hair that is too thin to split.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



I'm trying to educate someone that apparently doesn't want to be educated.  

Still think Lincoln freed the slaves and the 15th amendment granted blacks the right to vote?


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Go find some professional historians to educate since they don't see eye to eye with you on this either.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



No need.  I already understand how it works.  You don't and don't want to learn.  Continue to go through life as a dumbass.  It's a choice you made.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


No need because you know historians will laugh their asses off if you try to tell them that the 19th Ammendment did not enable woman's suffrage.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jun 14, 2016)

JoeMoma said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



You keep changing words with different meanings.  You first said granted then you changed to guaranteed.  Now you say enable.  You don't know what you believe yet want the rest of us to accept what you say.  What a fucking dumb piece of shit you are.  It's wonder you ever graduated high school as stupid as you are.  Seems social promotion in order to not hurt your feelings was in place.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Who is us?  Do you have a rodent in your pocket?  You are splitting hairs dude.  You are a lone voice trying to convince me that I am wrong.  You are so obsessed with exact words that you don't have the ability to use deductive reasoning. If there were women that didn't have the right to vote based on sex....because they were women and the passage of the 19 ammendment prevented people ( including women) from being denied to vote based on sex, then the 19th ammendment granted women the right to vote.  Instead of using the word "granted" there are plenty of synonyms that I can use in its place that will work.

With your splitting of hairs, you did make some valid points.  Many states, especially those out west had already established women's suffrage.  There were still other states that allowed women to vote only in certain types of elections.  There were still other states that simply did not allow women to vote.  The 19th ammendment put all the states on the same page concerning women's suffrage.  So, for the sake of splitting hairs, the 19th ammendment resulted in women gaining the right to vote in some states.  In other states, women already had the right to vote.  Oh no! I'm describing the effects of the 19th ammendment without using the exact words.  Well dude, the English language is very versitile.  Now take your pompos ass and F-off.


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court
> ...



What was the basis for the Dred Scott decision?


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > The founding fathers may have written the words, but SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the document, and there is no appeal from their decision.
> ...



You are conveniently forgetting the process for having an Amendment ratified and added to the constitution.

The amendment must be passed by a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate.  Following that, 3/4 of the state legislatures must approve the amendment.  No changes may be made to the amendment once passed by the US Legislature.  The Constitution does not stipulate a time limit but seven years has been accepted as a reasonable time.


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2016)

Markle said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The Professor said:
> ...



Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the easiest and best solution is to eliminate the Federal Minimum Wage.  If any of the states wish to have a minimum wage, for their state, they are welcome to see how that works for their state.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 21, 2016)

Markle said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > The Professor said:
> ...



?

Where do you get the idea that I forgot something?


----------

