Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?

[meaner gene]

If you haven't heard of the Arizona law to allow the legislature to override the vote, you're living with your head up your ass.

Why did you need a link if you now claim.

They always could do that, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is

WE
LIBERALS wrote the Constitution

Wrong. THEY wrote it, and commies like you want to claim credit for it. Have you no shame?

LIBERALS my friend
What have American LIBERALS given us?

The Constitution
Abolition of slavery
Worker rights
Womens rights
Civil Rights
Environmental Protections
ADA
Gay Rights

Conservatives fought against every one of them

So liberals had slaves and denied the women the right to vote...then changed their minds?

No, those would be Conservatives
Conservatives who cared more about the money that could be made off of slavery than their rights as human beings.

Almost all the "liberals" who wrote the Constitution had slaves.

Not true
Most of the signers did not have slaves

Utter horse shit. Name one who didn't have slaves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

And Republicans will continue to enact voter suppression measures.

 

[rightwinger]

Lefties hate the constitution and they want it destroyed or changed.

Another lie.

For decades liberals have used Constitutional case law to defend against the right’s attack on citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine the meaning of the Constitution – ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

That you and other conservatives don’t like how the courts have ruled is understandable, given the Constitution’s case law safeguards the American people from the right’s fear, ignorance, and hate.

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

It’s as if the Framers foresaw today’s conservatives, and recognizing that threat to the Republic and to the rights of its citizens, composed the Constitution as a countermeasure to the fear, ignorance, and hate common to the reactionary right.

The Founders foresaw a Government that would work for the benefit of We the People, would work together to reach common goals, would compromise

They would be sadly disappointed

 

[surada]

The constitution says the state legislatures will run elections, not Congress.

Once again, you only prove that you despise the Constitution.

This only proves you haven't read the constitution. Which as I said explicitly gives congress the right to set rules for federal elections.

I disagree.
The constitution not only says very little about elections, but what it says is awful and bad.

{... Section 3 originally required that the state legislatures elect the members of the Senate, but the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provides for the direct election of senators. ...}

If not for the states fixing the constitution with an amendment, we would not even be able to vote for senators at all.
In fact, originally only male land owners could vote.

When the SCOTUS started getting involved to ensure Blacks could vote, stopping Gerrymandering, etc., that is not federal authority.
That is judicial authority, and is completely separate from legislative jurisdiction, which the federal government is not supposed to have over elections.

rightwinger

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

 

[progressive hunter]

Lefties hate the constitution and they want it destroyed or changed.

Another lie.

For decades liberals have used Constitutional case law to defend against the right’s attack on citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine the meaning of the Constitution – ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

That you and other conservatives don’t like how the courts have ruled is understandable, given the Constitution’s case law safeguards the American people from the right’s fear, ignorance, and hate.

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

It’s as if the Framers foresaw today’s conservatives, and recognizing that threat to the Republic and to the rights of its citizens, composed the Constitution as a countermeasure to the fear, ignorance, and hate common to the reactionary right.

your premise is a lie,,

 

[rightwinger]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is

WE
LIBERALS wrote the Constitution

Wrong. THEY wrote it, and commies like you want to claim credit for it. Have you no shame?

LIBERALS my friend
What have American LIBERALS given us?

The Constitution
Abolition of slavery
Worker rights
Womens rights
Civil Rights
Environmental Protections
ADA
Gay Rights

Conservatives fought against every one of them

So liberals had slaves and denied the women the right to vote...then changed their minds?

No, those would be Conservatives
Conservatives who cared more about the money that could be made off of slavery than their rights as human beings.

Almost all the "liberals" who wrote the Constitution had slaves.

Not true
Most of the signers did not have slaves

Utter horse shit. Name one who didn't have slaves.

Ben Franklin, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton

 

[bripat9643]

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

The 2nd amendment is a single sentence, meaning it's to be interpreted as a sentence.
Why do you keep leaving out the first half.

the first half clarifies the second and has no power ,,

In logic one can say, if A then B. but the second amendment is really saying because A, then B.
Which really states if A then B, AND that A is true.
So then the second amendment is stating B is true, which is that the federal government shall have no jurisdiction over firearms.
It is not saying it is dependent upon A, the militia at all, because there could also be dozens of other reasons why the federal government should not have weapons jurisdiction.
If A then B does not imply not B if not A.
That is because B is not dependent upon A if there are other causal statements, like if C then B, if D then B, etc.
For example, the founders likely wanted to prevent federal weapons jurisdiction in case the federal government became corrupt, because the federal government is too far away and could not be counted on in an emergency, because the federal government could not as well differentiate between crowded urban areas and sparse rural areas, etc.
That are MANY reasons why the federal government should never have weapons jurisdiction, and NO reason why they ever should.

I actually agree with you for once.

 

[22lcidw]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is compared to a political party?

Given your posts in this thread the more relevant question is : do you have any idea of what a liberal is ? because so far you've clearly demonstrated that you do NOT.

You appear to be one of those folks that just like to use the "liberal" moniker as a mask to hide your true ideology which appears to be a garden variety, partisan progressive, maybe you can fool yourself by doing so but you're not fooling anyone that has understands history and political science.

Why not just admit what you are? are you ashamed of your belief system or something?

OK....I’ll let JFK define it for you

View attachment 492186

A 1960 Liberal. Or a 2020 Progressive Socialist. Voting for free stuff is not equality.

Helping people who need help is the earmark of a great society.
Allocating tax funds to do so is how it is done

Everyone gets “free stuff”
Some just object to others getting stuff

Program after program has been started. Price of the programs go up. Faster then revenue can be collected. Cities collect massive amounts of revenue from people outside cities in many states to keep solvent. There is never enough resources for the ever increasing amount of problems pushed by the agendas. Upstart Progs would not leave areas for lower tax havens if they believed in what you typed. There is earned "free stuff" and give away "free stuff". %% years of War on Poverty and the the same percentage of the population is impoverished. Only if the "free stuff" is stopped there will be a reckoning of violence unseen in human history. And the taxes keep rising as a percentage of income and wealth. The clock ticks on the inevitable. Move Progs. Move to greener pastures and let others pay more and beat your chests in socialist solidarity.

 

[Oddball]

Lefties hate the constitution and they want it destroyed or changed.

Another lie.

For decades liberals have used Constitutional case law to defend against the right’s attack on citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You mean they used case law to destroy the Constitution.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts determine the meaning of the Constitution – ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

That you and other conservatives don’t like how the courts have ruled is understandable, given the Constitution’s case law safeguards the American people from the right’s fear, ignorance, and hate.

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

It’s as if the Framers foresaw today’s conservatives, and recognizing that threat to the Republic and to the rights of its citizens, composed the Constitution as a countermeasure to the fear, ignorance, and hate common to the reactionary right.

your premise is a lie,,

Liike every other of his premises.

 

[progressive hunter]

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

The 2nd amendment is a single sentence, meaning it's to be interpreted as a sentence.
Why do you keep leaving out the first half.

the first half clarifies the second and has no power ,,

In logic one can say, if A then B. but the second amendment is really saying because A, then B.
Which really states if A then B, AND that A is true.
So then the second amendment is stating B is true, which is that the federal government shall have no jurisdiction over firearms.
It is not saying it is dependent upon A, the militia at all, because there could also be dozens of other reasons why the federal government should not have weapons jurisdiction.
If A then B does not imply not B if not A.
That is because B is not dependent upon A if there are other causal statements, like if C then B, if D then B, etc.
For example, the founders likely wanted to prevent federal weapons jurisdiction in case the federal government became corrupt, because the federal government is too far away and could not be counted on in an emergency, because the federal government could not as well differentiate between crowded urban areas and sparse rural areas, etc.
That are MANY reasons why the federal government should never have weapons jurisdiction, and NO reason why they ever should.

I actually agree with you for once.

ask him if he thinks the states can have jurisdiction of weapons??

 

[Oddball]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is compared to a political party?

Given your posts in this thread the more relevant question is : do you have any idea of what a liberal is ? because so far you've clearly demonstrated that you do NOT.

You appear to be one of those folks that just like to use the "liberal" moniker as a mask to hide your true ideology which appears to be a garden variety, partisan progressive, maybe you can fool yourself by doing so but you're not fooling anyone that has understands history and political science.

Why not just admit what you are? are you ashamed of your belief system or something?

OK....I’ll let JFK define it for you

View attachment 492186

A 1960 Liberal. Or a 2020 Progressive Socialist. Voting for free stuff is not equality.

Helping people who need help is the earmark of a great society.
Allocating tax funds to do so is how it is done

Everyone gets “free stuff”
Some just object to others getting stuff

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

You're not a "liberal" in the 18th or 21st centuries...You are a stone fucking Marxist.

 

[bripat9643]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is

WE
LIBERALS wrote the Constitution

Wrong. THEY wrote it, and commies like you want to claim credit for it. Have you no shame?

LIBERALS my friend
What have American LIBERALS given us?

The Constitution
Abolition of slavery
Worker rights
Womens rights
Civil Rights
Environmental Protections
ADA
Gay Rights

Conservatives fought against every one of them

So liberals had slaves and denied the women the right to vote...then changed their minds?

No, those would be Conservatives
Conservatives who cared more about the money that could be made off of slavery than their rights as human beings.

Almost all the "liberals" who wrote the Constitution had slaves.

Not true
Most of the signers did not have slaves

Utter horse shit. Name one who didn't have slaves.

Ben Franklin, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton

Nope. Franklin had slaves. Jon Jay had slaves. Alexander Hamilton had slaves.

 

[struth]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

classic liberals not dems

 

[meaner gene]

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

Which is where stare decicis comes in.

 

[bripat9643]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

We all know you love your slaves and deny the women the right to vote

Do you know what a Liberal is compared to a political party?

Given your posts in this thread the more relevant question is : do you have any idea of what a liberal is ? because so far you've clearly demonstrated that you do NOT.

You appear to be one of those folks that just like to use the "liberal" moniker as a mask to hide your true ideology which appears to be a garden variety, partisan progressive, maybe you can fool yourself by doing so but you're not fooling anyone that has understands history and political science.

Why not just admit what you are? are you ashamed of your belief system or something?

OK....I’ll let JFK define it for you

View attachment 492186

A 1960 Liberal. Or a 2020 Progressive Socialist. Voting for free stuff is not equality.

Helping people who need help is the earmark of a great society.
Allocating tax funds to do so is how it is done

Everyone gets “free stuff”
Some just object to others getting stuff

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

You're not a "liberal" in the 18th or 21st centuries...You are a stone fucking Marxist.

Rightwinger believes Karl Marx was one of the Founding Fathers.

 

[my2¢]

I've nothing against the Constitution. My problem is with people that want to cherry-pick what they want to take obsolute literally.

 

[struth]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

Two LIES in two sentences.

Nice.

The "liberals" who wrote the Constitution bear no relation whatsoever to today's crackpot prog neo-Marxists, and that mental case knows it.

They bear no relation to today’s Conservatives that pander to Corporate Greed at the expense of human rights.

humans have a right to work and make money

 

[bripat9643]

scotus gives opinions and doesnt rule,, those opinions can later be changed,,

Which is where stare decicis comes in.

Another scheme invented by the court.

 

[Oddball]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

classic liberals not dems

He knows the difference....He's just playing stupid.

Correction: he actually is stupid.