US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

States have no power to regulate federal elections

This is a discussion on States have no power to regulate federal elections within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; The provisions in the Constitution governing federal elections confirm the Framers' intent that States lack power to add qualifications. The Framers feared that the diverse ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2011, 09:39 PM
Banned
Member #27720
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,795
Thanks: 144
Thanked 288 Times in 217 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks
States have no power to regulate federal elections

The provisions in the Constitution governing federal elections confirm the Framers' intent that States lack power to add qualifications. The Framers feared that the diverse interests of the States would undermine the National Legislature, and thus they adopted provisions intended to minimize the possibility of state interference with federal elections. For example, to prevent discrimination against federal electors, the Framers required in Art. I, §2, cl. 1, that the qualifications for federal electors be the same as those for state electors. As Madison noted, allowing States to differentiate between the qualifications for state and federal electors "would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone." Similarly, in Art. I, §4, cl. 1, though giving the States the freedom to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," the Framers created a safeguard against state abuse by giving Congress the power to "by Law make or alter such Regulations." The Convention debates make clear that the Framers' overriding concern was the potential for States' abuse of the power to set the "Times, Places and Manner" of elections. Madison noted that "[i]t was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretionary power." Gouvernor Morris feared "that the States might make false returns and then make no provisions for new elections." When Charles Pinckney and John Rutledge moved to strike the congressional safeguard, the motion was soundly defeated. As Hamilton later noted: "Nothing can be more evident than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy."


The Framers' discussion of the salary of representatives reveals similar concerns. When the issue was first raised, Madison argued that congressional compensation should be fixed in the Constitution, rather than left to state legislatures, because otherwise "it would create an improper dependence." George Mason agreed, noting that "the parsimony of the States might reduce the provision so low that . . . the question would be not who were most fit to be chosen, but who were most willing to serve."


When the issue was later reopened, Nathaniel Gorham stated that he "wished not to refer the matter to the State Legislatures who were always paring down salaries in such a manner as to keep out of offices men most capable of executing the functions of them." Edmund Randolph agreed that "[i]f the States were to pay the members of the Nat[ional] Legislature, a dependence would be created that would vitiate the whole System." Rufus King "urged the danger of creating a dependence on the States," and Hamilton noted that "[t]hose who pay are the masters of those who are paid." The Convention ultimately agreed to vest in Congress the power to set its own compensation.


In light of the Framers' evident concern that States would try to undermine the National Government, they could not have intended States to have the power to set qualifications.


The Framers were unquestionably concerned that the States would simply not hold elections for federal officers, and therefore the Framers gave Congress the power to "make or alter" state election regulations. Yet under the dissent's approach, the States could achieve exactly the same result by simply setting qualifications for federal office sufficiently high that no one could meet those qualifications. It is inconceivable that the Framers would provide a specific constitutional provision to ensure that federal elections would be held while at the same time allowing States to render those elections meaningless by simply ensuring that no candidate could be qualified for office. Given the Framers' wariness over the potential for state abuse, we must conclude that the specification of fixed qualifications in the constitutional text was intended to prescribe uniform rules that would preclude modification by either Congress or the States.


There is further evidence of the Framers' intent in Art. 1, §5, cl. 1, which provides: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." That Art. I, §5 vests a federal tribunal with ultimate authority to judge a Member's qualifications is fully consistent with the understanding that those qualifications are fixed in the Federal Constitution, but not with the understanding that they can be altered by the States. If the States had the right to prescribe additional qualifications--such as property, educational, or professional qualifications--for their own representatives, state law would provide the standard for judging a candidate's eligibility.


Federal questions are generally answered finally by federal tribunals because rights which depend on federal law should be the same everywhere and their construction should be uniform. The judging of questions concerning rights which depend on state law is not, however, normally assigned to federal tribunals. The Constitution's provision for each House to be the judge of its own qualifications thus provides further evidence that the Framers believed that the primary source of those qualifications would be federal law.

Last edited by gekaap; 04-16-2011 at 09:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Banned
Member #27720
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,795
Thanks: 144
Thanked 288 Times in 217 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks
Oh good, I guess everyone agrees?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 01:24 AM
bripat9643's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29100
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 28,653
Thanks: 2,771
Thanked 8,316 Times in 5,932 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 5005
bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute
bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute bripat9643 has a reputation beyond repute
For example, to prevent discrimination against federal electors, the Framers required in Art. I, §2, cl. 1, that the qualifications for federal electors be the same as those for state electors. As Madison noted, allowing States to differentiate between the qualifications for state and federal electors "would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone." Similarly, in Art. I, §4, cl. 1, though giving the States the freedom to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," the Framers created a safeguard against state abuse by giving Congress the power to "by Law make or alter such Regulations."
horse****. There is no such language in the document. If you think there is, then you should have no trouble quoting it.

In light of the Framers' evident concern that States would try to undermine the National Government, they could not have intended States to have the power to set qualifications.
ROFL! The last thing the Founding Fathers were concerned about is the states undermining the federal government. In fact, the concerns were all in the opposite direction. The were concerned about the federal government growing so strong that it overwhelmed the independence of the states.

IThe Framers were unquestionably concerned that the States would simply not hold elections for federal officers, and therefore the Framers gave Congress the power to "make or alter" state election regulations.
Unfortunately for your absurd claim, the Framers gave the federal government no such powers. Why would any state not hold elections for federal officers? How would that benefit any state doing it?

Yet under the dissent's approach, the States could achieve exactly the same result by simply setting qualifications for federal office sufficiently high that no one could meet those qualifications. It is inconceivable that the Framers would provide a specific constitutional provision to ensure that federal elections would be held while at the same time allowing States to render those elections meaningless by simply ensuring that no candidate could be qualified for office. Given the Framers' wariness over the potential for state abuse, we must conclude that the specification of fixed qualifications in the constitutional text was intended to prescribe uniform rules that would preclude modification by either Congress or the States.
ROFL! This "we" draws a conclusion based on nothing more than it's own biases and delusions.

There is further evidence of the Framers' intent in Art. 1, §5, cl. 1, which provides: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." That Art. I, §5 vests a federal tribunal with ultimate authority to judge a Member's qualifications is fully consistent with the understanding that those qualifications are fixed in the Federal Constitution, but not with the understanding that they can be altered by the States.
Aricle I section 5 does no such thing. It doesn't even mention any such tribunal.

Where did you get this hokum? It's nothing but a pile of outright lies.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:55 AM
Banned
Member #27720
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,795
Thanks: 144
Thanked 288 Times in 217 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643 Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
horse****. There is no such language in the document. If you think there is, then you should have no trouble quoting it.
I did quote it. Maybe you should go read the constitution.

Quote:
ROFL! The last thing the Founding Fathers were concerned about is the states undermining the federal government. In fact, the concerns were all in the opposite direction. The were concerned about the federal government growing so strong that it overwhelmed the independence of the states.
This is hardly true. The AOC had proven to be a failure. The Founding Fathers recognized that a strong federal government was necessary. Under the AOC the states were too powerful and had the ability to essentially render the federal government moot. The intent in establishing a new constitution was to ensure that the states never again would have such power.

Quote:
Unfortunately for your absurd claim, the Framers gave the federal government no such powers. Why would any state not hold elections for federal officers? How would that benefit any state doing it?
Under the AOC it had become somewhat common for states to not send their representatives to Congress, and this prevented important business being done and crippled the federal government. You make it sound like an impossibility, but it is exactly what was happening when the framers came together for the constitutional convention, and they were determined to prevent the states from having such power ever again.

Quote:
ROFL! This "we" draws a conclusion based on nothing more than it's own biases and delusions.
No biases. Only necessary logical conclusions based on all information available.

Quote:
Aricle I section 5 does no such thing. It doesn't even mention any such tribunal.
Yes it does. You should go back and read it.

Quote:
Where did you get this hokum? It's nothing but a pile of outright lies.
Let's just say my information and sources for interpretation are above reproach.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gekaap For This Useful Post:
Vanquish (04-18-2011)
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:12 AM
Seawytch's Avatar
Information isnt Advocacy
Member #24452
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Deep in liberal California
Posts: 18,065
Thanks: 3,759
Thanked 5,102 Times in 3,730 Posts
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4707
Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute
Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643 Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
horse****.
California recently passed an Open Primary law. Any party will be able to vote in the Primary for any candidate of any party. This law does not apply to Federal Primary Elections for the President of the United States. Why?
__________________
~~
American Evangelicals are Outsourcing Their Hate!
~~

If you believe contraception that prevents the attachment of the zygote to the womb is abortion, you must believe god is the original abortionist. 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:24 AM
Charles_Main's Avatar
AR15 Owner
Member #11362
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16,607
Thanks: 332
Thanked 4,997 Times in 3,176 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1415
Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court
Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court Charles_Main could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643 Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
horse****. There is no such language in the document. If you think there is, then you should have no trouble quoting it.
I did quote it. Maybe you should go read the constitution.

Quote:
ROFL! The last thing the Founding Fathers were concerned about is the states undermining the federal government. In fact, the concerns were all in the opposite direction. The were concerned about the federal government growing so strong that it overwhelmed the independence of the states.
This is hardly true. The AOC had proven to be a failure. The Founding Fathers recognized that a strong federal government was necessary. Under the AOC the states were too powerful and had the ability to essentially render the federal government moot. The intent in establishing a new constitution was to ensure that the states never again would have such power.



Under the AOC it had become somewhat common for states to not send their representatives to Congress, and this prevented important business being done and crippled the federal government. You make it sound like an impossibility, but it is exactly what was happening when the framers came together for the constitutional convention, and they were determined to prevent the states from having such power ever again.



No biases. Only necessary logical conclusions based on all information available.

Quote:
Aricle I section 5 does no such thing. It doesn't even mention any such tribunal.
Yes it does. You should go back and read it.

Quote:
Where did you get this hokum? It's nothing but a pile of outright lies.
Let's just say my information and sources for interpretation are above reproach.
Dude you are wrong and miss guided in so many ways on this one I am not even going to start. The Founders were looking for a balance between State and Federal Power. They did not want a fed so weak it was pointless, and they did not want one so strong as to render the individual states meaningless.

Suffice to say you are right, the States can not regulate federal elections, However they are well with in their rights to regulate what you need to do to get on the ballot in their state.
__________________
Quote:
You built a house of cards
And got shocked when you saw them fall
Quote:
If you go lookin’ for hot water Don't act shocked when you get burned a little bit If you really want some hot water I can help you find it, oh oh, ah yeah
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:36 AM
Seawytch's Avatar
Information isnt Advocacy
Member #24452
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Deep in liberal California
Posts: 18,065
Thanks: 3,759
Thanked 5,102 Times in 3,730 Posts
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4707
Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute
Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Suffice to say you are right, the States can not regulate federal elections, However they are well with in their rights to regulate what you need to do to get on the ballot in their state.
Are you 100% sure about that?
__________________
~~
American Evangelicals are Outsourcing Their Hate!
~~

If you believe contraception that prevents the attachment of the zygote to the womb is abortion, you must believe god is the original abortionist. 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:57 AM
paperview's Avatar
Life is Good
Member #20155
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the road less traveled
Posts: 9,531
Thanks: 506
Thanked 3,047 Times in 2,160 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3451
paperview has a reputation beyond repute
paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute paperview has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Suffice to say you are right, the States can not regulate federal elections, However they are well with in their rights to regulate what you need to do to get on the ballot in their state.
Are you 100% sure about that?
I'm thinking it's close./

Abraham Lincoln, for example, wasn't even on the ballot in the southern states in the election of 1860.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:05 AM
Seawytch's Avatar
Information isnt Advocacy
Member #24452
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Deep in liberal California
Posts: 18,065
Thanks: 3,759
Thanked 5,102 Times in 3,730 Posts
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4707
Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute
Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute Seawytch has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Suffice to say you are right, the States can not regulate federal elections, However they are well with in their rights to regulate what you need to do to get on the ballot in their state.
Are you 100% sure about that?
I'm thinking it's close./

Abraham Lincoln, for example, wasn't even on the ballot in the southern states in the election of 1860.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
__________________
~~
American Evangelicals are Outsourcing Their Hate!
~~

If you believe contraception that prevents the attachment of the zygote to the womb is abortion, you must believe god is the original abortionist. 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:51 PM
Banned
Member #27720
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,795
Thanks: 144
Thanked 288 Times in 217 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
ACK! You ruined the trap! I was hoping to get more wing nuts and birthers to chime in and tell me how wrong I was and how much I don't know! LOL

For everyone who thinks I'm crazy for what I posted, the entire OP was an excerpt from the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc v. Thornton.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gekaap For This Useful Post:
Vanquish (04-18-2011)
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:03 PM
Leweman's Avatar
Registered User
Member #24459
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,640
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,120 Times in 721 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 495
Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness Leweman may be on a path to greatness
Well assuming that this whole rant is about Arizona passing a law requiring a a document verifying being a natural born citizen then U.S. Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995) doesnt disqualify Arizona. They are simply asking for proof, or so I assume from heresay because I havent acutally read the law so inform me if Im incorrect, proof of an already existing federal qualification for being allowed to run for President. It isnt making up its own qualifications for President or keeping them off the Ballot for something that isnt a Federal requirment unlike term limits which arent a condition found in the Constitution. Now the question goes what is considered sufficient proof and who has a right to determine what is sufficient proof.

Last edited by Leweman; 04-17-2011 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:15 PM
Banned
Member #27720
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,795
Thanks: 144
Thanked 288 Times in 217 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks
Well assuming that this whole rant is about Arizona passing a law requiring a a document verifying being a natural born citizen then U.S. Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995) doesnt disqualify Arizona. They are simply asking for proof, or so I assume from heresay because I havent acutally read the law so inform me if Im incorrect, proof of an already existing federal qualification for being allowed to run for President. It isnt making up its own qualifications for President or keeping them off the Ballot for something that isnt a Federal requirment unlike term limits which arent a condition found in the Constitution. Now the question goes what is considered sufficient proof and who has a right to determine what is sufficient proof.
There are a few problems here. First, the state of Arizona does not have the constitutional authority to review the qualifications of candidates for federal office. In Term Limits, the court explains this fact. Second problem is that the AZ bill does place indirect additional qualifications on a candidate beyond the strict rules outlined in the constitution, which the court also found to be beyond the constitutional power of the states. The AZ bill requires a candidate to possess a birth certificate. This is beyond the constitution's listed qualifications for President.

The constitution does not provide for any body to have the power to review the qualifications of a candidate for federal office. Members of Congress are judged for their qualifications AFTER being elected, and by their respective houses. Likewise, a person's qualifications for President are reviewed only after election, and are so reviewed by the electoral college.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:28 PM
Toro's Avatar
Member of the Illuminati
Member #2926
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Big Bend via Riderville
Posts: 32,826
Thanks: 1,645
Thanked 11,301 Times in 7,222 Posts
Mentioned: 159 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2823
Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute
Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute
pwnd

lol
__________________


“When you’re standing still, you’re really easy to cover.” - New Washington Capitals coach, Barry Trotz, to Alex Ovechkin.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:56 PM
Soggy in NOLA's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20241
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22,053
Thanks: 1,633
Thanked 6,761 Times in 4,518 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2687
Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute
Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute Soggy in NOLA has a reputation beyond repute
Oh good, I guess everyone agrees?
Uh, no Beavis.

Federal elections? You really want to go there?
__________________
Best example of who we're dealing with:
Quote:
Originally posted by NYCarbineer
Somebody has to get punished in order to balance the budget? Who would you prefer to punish?
Quote:
Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
One should always ****, piss, spit, and jerk off toward Israel.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:58 PM
Banned
Member #27720
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,795
Thanks: 144
Thanked 288 Times in 217 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks gekaap kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by Soggy in NOLA Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Oh good, I guess everyone agrees?
Uh, no Beavis.

Federal elections? You really want to go there?
Why not? The Supreme Court has already done the work for me. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gekaap For This Useful Post:
Vanquish (04-18-2011)
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.