The Infidel
EVIL CONSERVATIVE
Im just enjoying the hell out of all the "patriotic" images wrightwinger keeps posting....
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
![th2C75921965E92714.gif](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi769.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx340%2FInfidelzfun%2Ffunny%2520stuff%2Fth2C75921965E92714.gif&hash=4d373e375260aec1d370532618d8967a)
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
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.
i messed up on that specific statement. It was in order to get the southern states to ratify, but the method was to accelerate the inevitability of emancipation and abolition, not to strengthen the southern states or provide them with future opportunities to become stronger in both their state and federal seats.
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
We already have checks and balances in the federal government, the three branches and my vote is enough. I don't need anything overturned, I need representatives who are responsible to the people.
Would you say the same thing if McCain and the Republicans had won, and thye had passed a law that took citizenship away from anyone who disagreed with them?
I am afraid so amigo. I can't help if you want to vote in people who would turn America into a criminal dictatorship that preempts wars, and opens up it own butcher shop to torture, rape, and murder innocent chained & detained women & children. That is the way America works. We have enough checks & balances and don't need to add another layer to it. What we do need to do is vote them out of office. If you aren't willing to do that, then expect what we both get. It is certainly time to do that, considering we have a T-Party of upset individuals, but then they turned out to be as bad as republicans.
Would you say the same thing if McCain and the Republicans had won, and thye had passed a law that took citizenship away from anyone who disagreed with them?
I am afraid so amigo. I can't help if you want to vote in people who would turn America into a criminal dictatorship that preempts wars, and opens up it own butcher shop to torture, rape, and murder innocent chained & detained women & children. That is the way America works. We have enough checks & balances and don't need to add another layer to it. What we do need to do is vote them out of office. If you aren't willing to do that, then expect what we both get. It is certainly time to do that, considering we have a T-Party of upset individuals, but then they turned out to be as bad as republicans.
That either makes you a consistent liar or a consistent idiot, neither of which I approve of.
Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.
Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
the 3/5ths happened after the constitution was ratified and it was to compromise with the south while keeping majority in congress in the north to eventually abolish the practice. I can't believe i am educating you on something that your precious public school completely failed you on.
Public schools didn't fail. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do
Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.
Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.The 3/5s compromise was a brilliant compromise designed to punish slave states by denying them their full representation as long as they supported slavery.
Why is it we seem to ignore why certain things were in the Constitution?
LOL
As Avatar tries to defend slavery
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the Constitution. Because the 3/5s compromise was designed to end slavery by limiting the power of slave with the idea that it would end completely.
Are you suggesting that Slave states should have been giving their full power while they kept people in bondage?
No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.
Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.
Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
Nullification, its been around a long time but its use has been abandoned. This would codify it. Interesting idea.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -10th Ammendment.
This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.
Its also the least understood of any. It talks about powers not listed or defined by the Constitution and deposits them in the relm of two seperate entities, the States and Citizens.
Lets take for example the creation of the NSA, CIA, and DHS. The Constitution specifically vests in the Executive the power of "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and additionally the power to "Commission all the Officers of the United States." However, does that authorize the President to command intelligence agencies or domestic security agencies?
The traditional argument is that yes, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy he'd certainly have control of intelligence operations ran out of the Army and/or the Navy, and with the power to Commission Officers he can control and install the leadership for such organizations. However, an independent intelligence or security agency isn't provided for in the Constitution explicitly. Doesn't the 10th ammendment mean that unless the CIA, NSA, and FBI are housed under the auspices of the Army and Navy that formation and organization of such entities is reserved for the independent states?
That's clearly ridiculous (or is thought to be by most legal experts), so the argument must mean that control of the NSA, FBI, and CIA is a natural outgrowth of the Commander and Chief and Head of the Executive roles of the Presidency, so it seems to be the prevailing opinion that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply to certain non-enumerated powers.
That brings up what non-enumerated powers are and are not covered by the 10th Ammendment, and that's a doozy.
No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.
No compromise, passage of the new constitution. As in a majority of the 13 states had some form of legalised slavery at the time, there would have been no ratification.
Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?
No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.
No compromise, passage of the new constitution. As in a majority of the 13 states had some form of legalised slavery at the time, there would have been no ratification.
Then let the South go their own way, and let the North form their own Country. On issues like Slavery there shouldn't ever be compromise.
And don't try to sell me on "It was a different time" BS. The British had ended slavery in Britain by 1772, and in 1805 the British started acting unilaterally to shut down the Slave trade on the high seas. By 1827 they'd unilaterally declared slave traders Pirates and taken matters into their own hands.
Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?
Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?