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.
If they had cited the 14th they would’ve won. Makes you wonder what Turley is up to.
I cannot help but wonder how many here whining about RBG would whine even louder if they had had an operation for cancer and were expected to show up for work a week later.Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted
There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.
Good luck on your endeavor. As long as it can be shown be constitutional, you have my support.The problem is that the intent of the 14th is to be fully inclusive. So if its used to give specialness to one deviant behavior, it can’t shut out others.So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)
BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"
That’s why polygamy & incest marriage are already legal in all 50 states according to the pure distillation of Obergefell using the 14th in its rationale.
Correct. The lawsuits are already working their way upwards. These bigot liberals think they can limit marriage to a union of two people. What nerve.
well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.i don't think we should.20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.
the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.
ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.
as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.
That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!
I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".
Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?
If they had cited the 14th they would’ve won. Makes you wonder what Turley is up to.The problem is that the intent of the 14th is to be fully inclusive. So if its used to give specialness to one deviant behavior, it can’t shut out others.So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)
BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"
That’s why polygamy & incest marriage are already legal in all 50 states according to the pure distillation of Obergefell using the 14th in its rationale.
Here is the list of states where polygamy and incest are legal:
1.
2.
The last case dealing with polygamy was the Brown family. They never cited the 14th in their arguments. They cited denying them was a violation of their privacy and their religious liberties. Why don’t you support their religious liberties? You have be fully inclusive, no? Apparently you can’t pick and choose for the 14th, but you can for the 1st.
well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.i don't think we should.
the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.
ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.
as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.
That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!
I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".
Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?
Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate
1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected
And both of those were entirely legal.Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate
1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected
Ginsburg knows the deal with politics and the SCOTUS these days. (highly unfortunate that the SCOTUS is so politicized, but it is) Can't believe anyone thought she might retire soon.
They're funny that way as in ironically funny.
Something’s Happening: Ginsburg Cancels Another Event to ‘Focus on Work’ Despite Missing Work @ Something's Happening: Ginsburg Cancels Another Event to 'Focus on Work' Despite Missing Work
I just read an article where “an anonymous law clerk” claims she’s suffering from a severe case of pneumonia.
I love how conservatives obsess over Ginsburg missing a couple of weeks due to cancer surgery yet they celebrated leaving a seat vacant for almost a year under Obama
Glad to see at least a few things about conservative republicans are legal.And both of those were entirely legal.Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate
1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected
That's her call, is it not?She's 85 and with a boatload of health problems. She needs to step down.
so you're going to question say, ee cummings, intelligence? have at it son. but if this is all you have, the desperation is strong.people who are really smart don't have to tell people they are. it just shows.
It shows, for example, when people can't capitalize properly.
If you're going to participate in a thread about intelligence, you'd best proofread.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted
There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.
People miss periods of work all the time. A co-worker had breast cancer and missed more than a month of work during recovery.
You people act like this is something that never happens.
they are built by the processes and procedures documented in our constitution and in play since 1776.Republicans right now, are built around minority ruleagain - you are not saying anything here that wasn't blown up day 1 of writing the constitution. you are sitting here parroting your party bullet points and when confronted, you just parrot another and pretend your side thought this out.It negates one man, one voteit negates mob rules.The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be Presidenti don't think we should.
the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.
ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.
as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.
pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.
going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.
Some votes count more than others and it encourages minority rule
the left is all about WE DIDN'T WIN and that's it. period. end of story. now you must find excuses and consolation prizes and don't see your short term vision can and will backfire in time.
which is why the founding fathers didn't this the emo-way the left wants to redo it now.
They didn’t win the Presidency
They lost the House by nine million votes...despite their gerrymander
They hold the Senate by winning in lowly populated states, while states like NY and California get two Senators each
Over time, they will be unable to win anything. That is why they are so obsessed with stocking the courts......their last vestige of minority rule
i can pick out tons who say the same for trump.Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted
There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.
People miss periods of work all the time. A co-worker had breast cancer and missed more than a month of work during recovery.
You people act like this is something that never happens.
They would love for nothing more than her to drop dead.
I would guess Pence's pick would be much worse than Trump's .
You'll find out
both sides are horrible at this.Because you keep watching Fox that only shows her nodding.i am beginning to notice that every time i see ruthy on TV, she seems to be sleeping,,,why?You would better spend your time completing jigsaw puzzles than waiting with bated breathe on what a legislative body will accomplish..Fine. I will be less subtle.The "left" control nothing the Republicans do, the Democrats don't....The left is not the repubs or the dems since they are centrist. Where are these hard line communist and hard line socialist of the left that you keep claiming is in power?
Just like repubs -where is the KKK, white supremacist, fascist that are in power?
The Democrats will try to pretend RBG is still alive if we do nothing about it.
I DEMAND weekly proof that she is alive.
.
What I have seen on TV is Ruthie lifting weights, working out and chatting with interviewers and speaking intelligently about the Court.
Leave it to the deplorables to start cheerleading for her death just to stack the Court further. Sick.
please show me when popular vote determined a legitimate presidency.well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.i don't think we should.
the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.
ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.
as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.
That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!
I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".
Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?
Gorsuch is doubly not legitimate
1 He filled a seat that a previous President was denied the right to fill
2. He was nominated by a President who was not popularly elected
