Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wonder if that numbnut was ever able to point out where in the constitution it says you can't prevent groups of people from immigrating to the U.S.?
Imagine all of those people who bought a pocket constitution reading it, then discovering some inconvenient truths.
Imagine all of those people who bought a pocket constitution reading it, then discovering some inconvenient truths.
Imagine all of those people who bought a pocket constitution reading it, then discovering some inconvenient truths.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
Imagine all of those people who bought a pocket constitution reading it, then discovering some inconvenient truths.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
Dontcha know?
Its a living breathing document
.
I wonder if that numbnut was ever able to point out where in the constitution it says you can't prevent groups of people from immigrating to the U.S.?
I hope he wasn't trying to use Article VI, Clause 3 to claim what Trump was doing was unconstitutional. That clause said no religious test can be used as a qualification for holding pubic office or a position of public trust. I hope he wasn't trying to use Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 dealing with naturalization because Congress has the authority to regulate rules for naturalization and immigration as determined by the SCOTUS. Nothing limits them from using whatever they want to limit that and keeping someone out for religious reasons doesn't violate Article 6 since someone coming here isn't running for office.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
Pocket US Constitution becomes best-seller after speech
Why the U.S. Constitution Is Suddenly an Amazon Best Seller
Just watching a Trump speech. As people were being kicked out, every single one was holding up a pocket constitution. Some members of the audience were even trying to snatch them away but couldn't.
We should get everyone to mail a copy to Donald Trump.
I wonder if that numbnut was ever able to point out where in the constitution it says you can't prevent groups of people from immigrating to the U.S.?
I hope he wasn't trying to use Article VI, Clause 3 to claim what Trump was doing was unconstitutional. That clause said no religious test can be used as a qualification for holding pubic office or a position of public trust. I hope he wasn't trying to use Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 dealing with naturalization because Congress has the authority to regulate rules for naturalization and immigration as determined by the SCOTUS. Nothing limits them from using whatever they want to limit that and keeping someone out for religious reasons doesn't violate Article 6 since someone coming here isn't running for office.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
Actually Khan's words were: "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" While that doesn't refer to any particular Article, clause or issue (it refers to the whole thing) ---- it is a very valid question begged by myriad Rump declarations, such as most blatantly, this one:
That's Amendment Number One, the building block of the whole Concept, being dissed into the same bag with "rapists" and "pigs" and "losers". So the answer to Khan's question would appear to be "No".
I wonder if that numbnut was ever able to point out where in the constitution it says you can't prevent groups of people from immigrating to the U.S.?
I hope he wasn't trying to use Article VI, Clause 3 to claim what Trump was doing was unconstitutional. That clause said no religious test can be used as a qualification for holding pubic office or a position of public trust. I hope he wasn't trying to use Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 dealing with naturalization because Congress has the authority to regulate rules for naturalization and immigration as determined by the SCOTUS. Nothing limits them from using whatever they want to limit that and keeping someone out for religious reasons doesn't violate Article 6 since someone coming here isn't running for office.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
Actually Khan's words were: "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" While that doesn't refer to any particular Article, clause or issue (it refers to the whole thing) ---- it is a very valid question begged by myriad Rump declarations, such as most blatantly, this one:
That's Amendment Number One, the building block of the whole Concept, being dissed into the same bag with "rapists" and "pigs" and "losers". So the answer to Khan's question would appear to be "No".
Khan spoke for seven minutes. Are you claiming that's all he said? His reference to Trump reading the Constitution was based on Khan's criticism of Trump's suggestion of building a wall along the Mexican border and temporary ban of foreign Muslims into the U.S. Whether those policies are a good or bad political policy is left up to each individual. Whether they are unconstitutional is left up to fact and the facts say neither are unconstitutional.
In Donald's version, it has twelve Articles.Imagine all of those people who bought a pocket constitution reading it, then discovering some inconvenient truths.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
I wonder if that numbnut was ever able to point out where in the constitution it says you can't prevent groups of people from immigrating to the U.S.?
I hope he wasn't trying to use Article VI, Clause 3 to claim what Trump was doing was unconstitutional. That clause said no religious test can be used as a qualification for holding pubic office or a position of public trust. I hope he wasn't trying to use Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 dealing with naturalization because Congress has the authority to regulate rules for naturalization and immigration as determined by the SCOTUS. Nothing limits them from using whatever they want to limit that and keeping someone out for religious reasons doesn't violate Article 6 since someone coming here isn't running for office.
Liberals claim they've read the Constitution and still can't show specific words in it they claim it has.
Actually Khan's words were: "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" While that doesn't refer to any particular Article, clause or issue (it refers to the whole thing) ---- it is a very valid question begged by myriad Rump declarations, such as most blatantly, this one:
That's Amendment Number One, the building block of the whole Concept, being dissed into the same bag with "rapists" and "pigs" and "losers". So the answer to Khan's question would appear to be "No".
Khan spoke for seven minutes. Are you claiming that's all he said? His reference to Trump reading the Constitution was based on Khan's criticism of Trump's suggestion of building a wall along the Mexican border and temporary ban of foreign Muslims into the U.S. Whether those policies are a good or bad political policy is left up to each individual. Whether they are unconstitutional is left up to fact and the facts say neither are unconstitutional.
I quoted him, verbatim. Did he or did he not say "have you even read the United States Constitution?"?
