19 Minutes...That’s When the Leftist Attack on the Constitution Began

[Billiejeens]

Reminder: WaPo declared impeachment campaign started 19 minutes after President was sworn in
These people are disgusting. You lost. The people have spoken through the Constitution of the United States of America. Now you want to overthrow the government? Go ahead. Blood will spill in this country if you communists think you can win a victory the Soviets couldn’t between 1945-1991.

No President is above the law

What does that have to do with President Trump?

When Trump violates his oath to support and defend the constitution, when he breaks the law, he must be held to account.

Doubt that will ever happen with President Trump
But should it happen, of course.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm afraid SF is within it's legal right to allow anyone it chooses to vote in local SF elections. Apparently the duly elected representatives of SF so decided. Democracy in action, sorry you don't approve.

The US constitution doesn't approve, perhaps you should read it sometime.

I wasn't aware of this. Please point me to where in the Constitution it is addressed. Unless you're just making stuff up...

See post 161, dumb ass.

.

So which part of Article 4, Section 4 address who is allowed to vote in local elections?

The portion I highlighted. I guess you're too stupid to know that localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards. You can pretend that little commie enclaves like SF can set their own rules, that doesn't comport with reality. Non-citizens have no right to vote in any election and you commies can't change that.

.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

 

[Billiejeens]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

Yeah, of course.
Democrats loved that Big Blue impenetrable wall - until it wasn't.
The EC gives a huge advantage to the Dems.

 

[Borillar]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

Actually, the EC makes a vote in Montana equal to several California or Texas votes.

 

[alang1216]

Reminder: WaPo declared impeachment campaign started 19 minutes after President was sworn in
These people are disgusting. You lost. The people have spoken through the Constitution of the United States of America. Now you want to overthrow the government? Go ahead. Blood will spill in this country if you communists think you can win a victory the Soviets couldn’t between 1945-1991.

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

How is it you dont understand how we elect Presidents in this country?

Understanding does not mean endorsement.

 

[Borillar]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

Yeah, of course.
Democrats loved that Big Blue impenetrable wall - until it wasn't.
The EC gives a huge advantage to the Dems.

Then why has it always worked in favor of Republicans when the popular vote has differed from the EC vote?

 

[alang1216]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

'Nobody' meaning you?

Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 547,398 more popular votes than Bush, making him the first person since Grover Cleveland in 1888 to win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College.

The world would be a different place.

There is no national public vote.
My goodness. You are stupid and uninformed.

There is, I voted in it. My ballot said Trump and Hillary, not the name of some Electoral College person.

 

[alang1216]

I'm afraid SF is within it's legal right to allow anyone it chooses to vote in local SF elections. Apparently the duly elected representatives of SF so decided. Democracy in action, sorry you don't approve.

The US constitution doesn't approve, perhaps you should read it sometime.

I wasn't aware of this. Please point me to where in the Constitution it is addressed. Unless you're just making stuff up...

See post 161, dumb ass.

.

So which part of Article 4, Section 4 address who is allowed to vote in local elections?

The portion I highlighted. I guess you're too stupid to know that localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards. You can pretend that little commie enclaves like SF can set their own rules, that doesn't comport with reality. Non-citizens have no right to vote in any election and you commies can't change that.

.

You can derive election rules from: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government?
Fat chance.

Where does the CA constitution say that "localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards"? Or did you make that up too?

 

[regent]

This guarantee in the Constitution is addressed to the states.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

Yeah, of course.
Democrats loved that Big Blue impenetrable wall - until it wasn't.
The EC gives a huge advantage to the Dems.

Then why has it always worked in favor of Republicans when the popular vote has differed from the EC vote?

Define “always worked in favor of Republicans.” 2012? 2008? 1996? 1992? How about this.... if NY, CA, and IL consistently voted Republican, would you still be making the argument for EC abolishment?

 

[daveman]

Hypocrite Donald wanted his two predecessors removed from office by force. He wanted his friend Nancy Pelosi to remove Bush, and he worked for six years to get Obama removed by chasing a hoax that Obama was born in Kenya.

Trump is a real dumbass sucker for hoaxes.

Karma's a *****!

Hey, you know who started the birther thing?

The Hillary Clinton campaign.

Hey, you know who made his bones as a Birther, and then became the Birther-in-Chief? The degree of embarrassment Trumpkins feel at his Birther past is directly proportional to their desire to pin it on someone else.

Hey, dumbass, I just showed you who came up with it.

But you don't have the courage to criticize Hillary.

 

[Billiejeens]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

'Nobody' meaning you?

Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 547,398 more popular votes than Bush, making him the first person since Grover Cleveland in 1888 to win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College.

The world would be a different place.

There is no national public vote.
My goodness. You are stupid and uninformed.

There is, I voted in it. My ballot said Trump and Hillary, not the name of some Electoral College person.

Nope

 

[Borillar]

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

Yeah, of course.
Democrats loved that Big Blue impenetrable wall - until it wasn't.
The EC gives a huge advantage to the Dems.

Then why has it always worked in favor of Republicans when the popular vote has differed from the EC vote?

Define “always worked in favor of Republicans.” 2012? 2008? 1996? 1992? How about this.... if NY, CA, and IL consistently voted Republican, would you still be making the argument for EC abolishment?

Every time the popular vote has differed from the Electoral College, a Republican has been elected.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm afraid SF is within it's legal right to allow anyone it chooses to vote in local SF elections. Apparently the duly elected representatives of SF so decided. Democracy in action, sorry you don't approve.

The US constitution doesn't approve, perhaps you should read it sometime.

I wasn't aware of this. Please point me to where in the Constitution it is addressed. Unless you're just making stuff up...

You're not very well educated and not very bright.

{
[paste:font size="5"]No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
}

This is known as the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, which the founders included to ensure that there is no "restraint of trade" between the states.

Note that they specifically state "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another:" Obviously the city of Scat Francisco is in direct and flagrant violation and should be considered in a state of open rebellion against the United States of America, necessitating the deployment of federal troops to compel the criminals running the city to return to lawfulness.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just to be accurate, you're lying. California OPENLY encourages illegal aliens to vote.

No, just more BS. They encourage illegal aliens to register to drive. Federal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926. San Francisco in November will become the largest city in the nation to allow non-citizens the chance to vote in a local election.

You Communists and your lies.

{
SEC. 6.
Section 2268 of the Elections Code is amended to read:


2268.
If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered or preregistered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration or preregistration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.}

Bill Text - AB-1407 California New Motor Voter Program: voter registration.

California ENCOURAGES voting by illegal aliens.

More BS. 2268 does allow ineligible voters to vote, it only means they are not criminally liable if they didn't intend to vote illegally. If you continued to read you'd find:

SEC. 8.
Section 2270 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
2270.
The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to implement this chapter, including regulations addressing both of the following:
(a) A process for canceling the registration or preregistration of a person who is ineligible to vote, but became registered or preregistered under the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of any violation by that person of Section 18100.

So, California AUTOMATICALLY registers illegal aliens to vote and then the registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.

California ENCOURAGES illegal aliens to vote in national elections. Fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just to be accurate: The people spoke but the Electoral College negated their choice.

Nobody ever heard of that pesky "electoral college" thing until evil Trump sneaked it in there!

Dems only have issue with the EC when they lose.

If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC vote, few, if any will be calling for elimination of the EC. I can honestly say I would not call for elimination of the EC. The EC makes vote in Montana equal to a vote in California.

Actually, the EC makes a vote in Montana equal to several California or Texas votes.

Really Comrade? In 2016, the state of California had 56 Electoral votes, the state of Montana had 3.

 

[OKTexas]

The US constitution doesn't approve, perhaps you should read it sometime.

I wasn't aware of this. Please point me to where in the Constitution it is addressed. Unless you're just making stuff up...

See post 161, dumb ass.

.

So which part of Article 4, Section 4 address who is allowed to vote in local elections?

The portion I highlighted. I guess you're too stupid to know that localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards. You can pretend that little commie enclaves like SF can set their own rules, that doesn't comport with reality. Non-citizens have no right to vote in any election and you commies can't change that.

.

You can derive election rules from: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government?
Fat chance.

Where does the CA constitution say that "localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards"? Or did you make that up too?

Everyone who takes an oath of office in the US swears to support and defend the Constitution of the US, that includes the fags in SF. Now show me in the Constitution where it authorizes anyone but citizens to vote.

.

 

[alang1216]

I'm afraid SF is within it's legal right to allow anyone it chooses to vote in local SF elections. Apparently the duly elected representatives of SF so decided. Democracy in action, sorry you don't approve.

The US constitution doesn't approve, perhaps you should read it sometime.

I wasn't aware of this. Please point me to where in the Constitution it is addressed. Unless you're just making stuff up...

You're not very well educated and not very bright.

{
[paste:font size="5"]No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
}

This is known as the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, which the founders included to ensure that there is no "restraint of trade" between the states.

Note that they specifically state "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another:" Obviously the city of Scat Francisco is in direct and flagrant violation and should be considered in a state of open rebellion against the United States of America, necessitating the deployment of federal troops to compel the criminals running the city to return to lawfulness.

I'm educated enough to have guessed you were just making stuff up. That is, by far, the weakest legal argument I have EVER heard. Bar none. How you get from commerce to voting, I have not a clue.

 

[alang1216]

I wasn't aware of this. Please point me to where in the Constitution it is addressed. Unless you're just making stuff up...

See post 161, dumb ass.

.

So which part of Article 4, Section 4 address who is allowed to vote in local elections?

The portion I highlighted. I guess you're too stupid to know that localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards. You can pretend that little commie enclaves like SF can set their own rules, that doesn't comport with reality. Non-citizens have no right to vote in any election and you commies can't change that.

.

You can derive election rules from: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government?
Fat chance.

Where does the CA constitution say that "localities are political subdivisions of the States and are legally bound to the same standards"? Or did you make that up too?

Everyone who takes an oath of office in the US swears to support and defend the Constitution of the US, that includes the fags in SF. Now show me in the Constitution where it authorizes anyone but citizens to vote.

.

The Constitution addresses who can vote in national elections only. It does not address State and certainly not local elections.