One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[OKTexas]

You must have take the short bus to school or you're just not paying attention. I said you regressives call voter ID voter suppression, get it. So you might want to explain the difference to them.

Aww,stop squirming…you got caught red handed trying to distort and change the narrative.

RDEAN SAID: ↑
Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Then you tried to make it solely about voter ID:
OKTEXAS SAID: ↑
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.


Again, stop squirming and accept the cloak of defeat that I have placed around your shoulders. It fits you so well.

So this isn't you claiming voter ID is voter suppression? You don't seem to be drawing any distinctions. Typical regressive, tries to play semantics game and loses. GOOD JOB REGRESSIVE!!!!!!!

There is an agenda here and at least one prominent republican has stated so. That agenda is to keep those Obama supporters who are most likely to have difficulty obtaining an ID in time for the election from voting.

Aw cut out the BS, we all know what the GOP is doing with their voter ID antics. The North Carolina Court decision has exposed that strategy already. But if that isn't proof enough of the GOP national agenda to suppress voting rights, here is more:

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44

In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45

In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[JQPublic1]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

 

[JQPublic1]

Aww,stop squirming…you got caught red handed trying to distort and change the narrative.

RDEAN SAID: ↑
Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Then you tried to make it solely about voter ID:
OKTEXAS SAID: ↑
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.


Again, stop squirming and accept the cloak of defeat that I have placed around your shoulders. It fits you so well.

So this isn't you claiming voter ID is voter suppression? You don't seem to be drawing any distinctions. Typical regressive, tries to play semantics game and loses. GOOD JOB REGRESSIVE!!!!!!!

There is an agenda here and at least one prominent republican has stated so. That agenda is to keep those Obama supporters who are most likely to have difficulty obtaining an ID in time for the election from voting.

Aw cut out the BS, we all know what the GOP is doing with their voter ID antics. The North Carolina Court decision has exposed that strategy already. But if that isn't proof enough of the GOP national agenda to suppress voting rights, here is more:

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44

In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45

In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

Feel free to show me where Article 3 gives judges Article 1 powers reserved to congress. The Roberts court rewrote and redefined black letter law twice in ACA cases. That's just two examples. The body of the Constitution, as you put it is the supreme law of the land, they wrote it down for a reason, it's not a suggestion, it's the LAW. And every federal and State office holder swears an oath to protect and defend it.

 

[OKTexas]

So this isn't you claiming voter ID is voter suppression? You don't seem to be drawing any distinctions. Typical regressive, tries to play semantics game and loses. GOOD JOB REGRESSIVE!!!!!!!

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44

In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45

In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

The hildabeast won't get the nomination.............................................Again!

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

My reply was this.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You stated;

Article 5 was used to change it [amend the Constitution], meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

My response to that was this;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply.

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;

That Article [ARTICLE 5] is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;

You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to.

Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

 

[JQPublic1]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

Feel free to show me where Article 3 gives judges Article 1 powers reserved to congress. The Roberts court rewrote and redefined black letter law twice in ACA cases. That's just two examples. The body of the Constitution, as you put it is the supreme law of the land, they wrote it down for a reason, it's not a suggestion, it's the LAW. And every federal and State office holder swears an oath to protect and defend it.

It is the function of Congress to promulgate federal laws and it is the function of the USSC to deem the Constitutionality of those laws. What is it about that separation of power you don't understand?

How many times have we seen broad interpretations of the Constitution for the sake of partisan expediency . Interpretations of the Justices sometimes vary wildly from Constitutional narrative. Often the court is split. In effect that solitary fact validates my premise without question.

 

[JQPublic1]

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44

In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45

In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

The lower court obviously was all RW people with a partisan agenda.

 

[OKTexas]

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

The hildabeast won't get the nomination.............................................Again!

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

My reply was this.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You stated;

Article 5 was used to change it [amend the Constitution], meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

My response to that was this;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply.

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;

That Article [ARTICLE 5] is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;

You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to.

Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

Feel free to show me where Article 3 gives judges Article 1 powers reserved to congress. The Roberts court rewrote and redefined black letter law twice in ACA cases. That's just two examples. The body of the Constitution, as you put it is the supreme law of the land, they wrote it down for a reason, it's not a suggestion, it's the LAW. And every federal and State office holder swears an oath to protect and defend it.

It is the function of Congress to promulgate federal laws and it is the function of the USSC to deem the Constitutionality of those laws. What is it about that separation of power you don't understand?

How many times have we seen broad interpretations of the Constitution for the sake of partisan expediency . Interpretations of the Justices sometimes vary wildly from Constitutional narrative. Often the court is split. In effect that solitary fact validates my premise without question.

Why didn't you address my examples?

In the first ACA decision they found the penalty for not buying insurance unconstitutional. Then they declared it not to be an unconstitutional penalty, but a tax, in essence rewriting the law. Which they have no constitutional authority to do. At that point they should have declared the law unconstitutional and sent it back to congress to be fixed, but the didn't do that did they?

In the second example they ignored black letter text that appeared 9 different places in the law, which said no subsidies could go to States that didn't establish exchanges, and decided the intent of congress is everyone eligible for subsidies could get them regardless if the State had established an exchange. What they should have done is uphold the law as written, and left it to congress to fix it, they didn't.

So explain how those two examples are not encroaching into Article 1 powers. Thus obliterating the separation of powers.

 

[OKTexas]

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44

In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45

In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

The lower court obviously was all RW people with a partisan agenda.

So what happened to this: My B/U

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

 

[JQPublic1]

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

Feel free to show me where Article 3 gives judges Article 1 powers reserved to congress. The Roberts court rewrote and redefined black letter law twice in ACA cases. That's just two examples. The body of the Constitution, as you put it is the supreme law of the land, they wrote it down for a reason, it's not a suggestion, it's the LAW. And every federal and State office holder swears an oath to protect and defend it.

It is the function of Congress to promulgate federal laws and it is the function of the USSC to deem the Constitutionality of those laws. What is it about that separation of power you don't understand?

How many times have we seen broad interpretations of the Constitution for the sake of partisan expediency . Interpretations of the Justices sometimes vary wildly from Constitutional narrative. Often the court is split. In effect that solitary fact validates my premise without question.

Why didn't you address my examples?

In the first ACA decision they found the penalty for not buying insurance unconstitutional. Then they declared it not to be an unconstitutional penalty, but a tax, in essence rewriting the law. Which they have no constitutional authority to do. At that point they should have declared the law unconstitutional and sent it back to congress to be fixed, but the didn't do that did they?

In the second example they ignored black letter text that appeared 9 different places in the law, which said no subsidies could go to States that didn't establish exchanges, and decided the intent of congress is everyone eligible for subsidies could get them regardless if the State had established an exchange. What they should have done is uphold the law as written, and left it to congress to fix it, they didn't.

So explain how those two examples are not encroaching into Article 1 powers. Thus obliterating the separation of powers.

Any explanation I submit to you won't change a thing. As "laymen" we can only speculate at best about the fragile line between interpretation and promulgation. I would have to take the time to look at the dissenting and majority opinions to get a sense of whether the line of demarcation regarding separation of powers was crossed.
From what I know about the majority decision, the government's case rested on three proposals for getting the ACA mandate Constitutionally legal. As a penalty, the mandate was unConstitutional under the Commerce Clause. But as a tax , the mandate was deemed Constitutional even though the actual word used in the law was" penalty."

This is the bone of contention that has sparked a torrent of controversy since the legal inception of the law. According to this link the tax approach was merely an interpretation and not an act of legislation by the Supreme Court:

How can the court call the mandate a tax if the law itself didn’t call it that?

The court is not bound to interpret laws exactly as they are written, but uses what it calls a “functional approach”—considering the substance of a law in addition to its formal language.

Under this approach, the court ruled that the penalty the law imposes on people who don’t buy health insurance “looks like a tax in many respects,” and that it is permissible under the court’s previous case law for several reasons: the amount of money due is “far less than the price of insurance” and it is collected by the IRS under normal means of taxation.

 

[Meathead]

A woman who defends child-rapist and a husband who rapes vs some other guy who talks bawdy about women.

Hmmm. Let's see.

 

[HnL]

The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

Wrong. There a legion of answers. It is a given that the judges will follow the constitution. So Hillary doesn't have to do what you say. You aren't her master or her boss. And clearly you aren't as smart as her. So why do you treat her in such a grotesquely sexist manner?

Were you channeling George H. W. Bush when he debated Geraldine Ferraro?

 

[HnL]

A woman who defends child-rapist and a husband who rapes vs some other guy who talks bawdy about women.

Hmmm. Let's see.

Show us where Bill Clinton was convicted of child rape or any kind of rape.

 

[JQPublic1]

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

The lower court obviously was all RW people with a partisan agenda.

So what happened to this: My B/U

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

I don't see a non sequitur in what I posted. If you think you see one, point to it!

 

[Esmeralda]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts? How can anyone take your post seriously? That's my thought.

 

[Meathead]

A woman who defends child-rapist and a husband who rapes vs some other guy who talks bawdy about women.

Hmmm. Let's see.

Show us where Bill Clinton was convicted of child rape or any kind of rape.

You're either deliberately obtuse or just stupid. I did not suggest Bill had been convicted of raping children or indeed had ever raped one.

I'm going with just plain stupid.

 

[kaz]

What court ruling?

Damn, SON… how many times do I have to post the link? See that NCvote in my sig line? That explains it all.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

Your crass assessment of the court's judgement reflects who you are: an unsavory lowlife filled with hate and anger.Logic is alien to you and reason is lost in the windmills of your mind. Vent as you will. I will join the others in watching the deplorable spectacle you've become from a distance.

Tissue?

In the meantime, name any American citizens who weren't able to vote because the meanie Republicans stopped them. You're 0 fer so far ...

Toilet paper? You need plenty with all the BS you spew!

If you want names read the court case I cited. Also read post #159 which impugns your notion that leftists are against fair voter ID laws. It is the accompanying discriminatory practices that drew the ire of the court and the petitioners for justice.

You use toilet paper for tissues? How ghetto of you.

OK, first I read the link you pointed to that didn't name or even claim any US citizen was denied the right to vote, just that you knuckle draggers think blacks are too lazy and stupid to get a free ID to vote because they're too busy eating chicken and watermelon and only have time to vote, not get a free ID to do it. Now I'll read the latest contestant.

Edit: OK, I read it, it didn't name anyone in there who couldn't vote for voter ID laws. In fact it said minority voting went up 6.1% after the voter ID law was enacted in Georgia.

And I didn't say there is no voter fraud, I challenged your racist assertion that blacks aren't smart enough or motivated enough to get a free ID to vote. Other types of fraud should be fought too. And Democrats are the best at committing it, which is why you oppose voter ID laws. Or as you really should call them, a leash ...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

My reply was this.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You stated;

Article 5 was used to change it [amend the Constitution], meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

My response to that was this;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply.

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;

That Article [ARTICLE 5] is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;

You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to.

Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment?

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!