Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gun owners don't need to lobby (or shouldn't need) to lobby and vote for their existence, the Constitution demands, as "necessary" in the Second Amendment.By your 'logic', gun owners should not be allowed to vote.
k bye troll
who would have thought 2ndA hated the military so much that he wants to take away their vote
Yep. If someone is employed by the military, they can't be expected to be an objective judge of matters relating to our national defense. So by 2ndA's logic, the military should not be voting.
The military exists by express permission of the Constitution. .
OK, id have to disagree. A guy with a paving company who gets a contract to repave part of I40, he should lose his right to vote? I dont think so. A guy collecting food stamps, a guy collecting disability--yeah no reason for him to vote.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
In the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote is not to be "denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
And? It says nothing about people receiving funds from the government.
In fact, what does your post even contribute to the thread, liberal parasite?
It's amazing how stupid you are.It's amazing how little you understand the difference between earning money and collecting money.The oldest maxim of law. If adhered to strictly, it would mean that people on the government dole/teet/ parasites and leeches, etc, should be ineligible to vote.
Voting is the ultimate form of judgement in America. Parasites are therefore ineligible to vote. Letting leeches and parasites vote is the greatest unjust fraud ever foisted on Taxpaying Americans (net positive tax paying).
Should parasites be allowed to vote? (People on the government dole), this includes government employees and contractors.
Obviously government employees and contractors should be allowed to vote. And of course, they are.
Its fascinating how many conservatives want to restrict voting.
Its amazing how consistently little relevance your posts have to what you're responding to.
Unless you're arguing that a soldier who fights in our wars isn't earning his money and shouldn't be allowed to vote.....then you're entire post is just meaningless jibberjabber.
OK< its not amazing at all. I've seen it before.
My post was absolutely responsive and a complete obliteration of your point.
The OP is complainng about people who collect money from the governmnt via entitlement programs, not people who are employed by the government doing a job, or receiving benefits as a result of service.
Precisely, only government employees that exist by express notice of the Constitution (elected officers, Navy, etc) would be exempt here, and contractors working for positions expressly required by the Constitution (military industry for instance).
These people don't have to lobby for their existence, their existence is required by the Constitution. All other government employees and contractors, c ya.
The constitution does not mandate when where and how the military will be used. It doesnt mandate a size, level of pay, or gi benefits. These are issues decided by politics - and since tou dont want people who might vote in their own interests to have a vote you have to accept that your principle would strip the members of the military the right to voteDoesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not
Yes, I'm well aware that Progressives like you care not for what the Constitution says.
The defense industry doesn't have a lobby?
whoa, best one yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just because the Constitution says we can have s military doesnt mean any particular company must be contracted to help supply it.The defense industry doesn't have a lobby?
whoa, best one yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are illiterate.
I said it SHOULD NOT need a lobby, just like gun owners SHOULD NOT need a lobby either. That doens't mean they DO NOT have a lobby.
It's sad that CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS AND ENUMERATED OBLIGATIONS NEED A FUCKING LOBBY TO WARD OFF PROGRESSIVES PARASITES LIKE YOU.
OK, id have to disagree. A guy with a paving company who gets a contract to repave part of I40, he should lose his right to vote? I dont think so. A guy collecting food stamps, a guy collecting disability--yeah no reason for him to vote.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
Yes I want the federal government to reign. lolol
OK, id have to disagree. A guy with a paving company who gets a contract to repave part of I40, he should lose his right to vote? I dont think so. A guy collecting food stamps, a guy collecting disability--yeah no reason for him to vote.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
Yes I want the federal government to reign. lolol
Do you realize how stupid you sound? A government that reigns is a national government, not a federal government. Do you even know what federalism is?
OK, id have to disagree. A guy with a paving company who gets a contract to repave part of I40, he should lose his right to vote? I dont think so. A guy collecting food stamps, a guy collecting disability--yeah no reason for him to vote.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
Yes I want the federal government to reign. lolol
Do you realize how stupid you sound? A government that reigns is a national government, not a federal government. Do you even know what federalism is?
OK, id have to disagree. A guy with a paving company who gets a contract to repave part of I40, he should lose his right to vote? I dont think so. A guy collecting food stamps, a guy collecting disability--yeah no reason for him to vote.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
Yes I want the federal government to reign. lolol
Do you realize how stupid you sound? A government that reigns is a national government, not a federal government. Do you even know what federalism is?
NYcarbineer played the common liberal tactic of "grammar police" when I used "reign" instead of "rein"
You Leftwats have the same brainless response every time this is brought up. Military persons are not leeches.who would have thought 2ndA hated the military so much that he wants to take away their voteLetting leeches and parasites vote is the greatest unjust fraud ever foisted on Taxpaying Americans
Man, that's a whole bunch of Washington lobbyists that are gonna be pissed they lost the right to vote.
And are you really gonna restrict the parasite politician from voting? That won't go over very well.
How about the leech that runs the company that get all their business from the government. No voting for them.
Are you sure you thought this through?
OK, id have to disagree. A guy with a paving company who gets a contract to repave part of I40, he should lose his right to vote? I dont think so. A guy collecting food stamps, a guy collecting disability--yeah no reason for him to vote.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
Yes I want the federal government to reign. lolol
Do you realize how stupid you sound? A government that reigns is a national government, not a federal government. Do you even know what federalism is?
NYcarbineer played the common liberal tactic of "grammar police" when I used "reign" instead of "rein"
But he was serious about wanting a government that reigns; he let that slip. He wants a national government, we want a return to federal government. There's a difference.
Yes. He's a beneficiary of undelegated federal powers.
Now if the state/local governments want to pay them, that's fine. All interstates should be turned over to the States on whose territory they reside.
You do want to reign in the feoderal government right?
Yes I want the federal government to reign. lolol
Do you realize how stupid you sound? A government that reigns is a national government, not a federal government. Do you even know what federalism is?
NYcarbineer played the common liberal tactic of "grammar police" when I used "reign" instead of "rein"
But he was serious about wanting a government that reigns; he let that slip. He wants a national government, we want a return to federal government. There's a difference.
The national government is the ultimate authority in a federal government.
You people aren't federalists. You are anti-federalists.
The national government is the ultimate authority in a federal government.
You people aren't federalists. You are anti-federalists.
The national government is the ultimate authority in a federal government.
You people aren't federalists. You are anti-federalists.
NYcarbineer, want to make a deal? If I'm wrong, I delete my USMB account, if you're wrong you delete yours. I will show you with one sentence from the Constitution that the Several States are the highest authority in our government.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Drumroll!
"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."
Goodbye, won't miss you....
Article V:
On the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.
by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
