One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[OKTexas]

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

Feel free to show me where Article 3 gives judges Article 1 powers reserved to congress. The Roberts court rewrote and redefined black letter law twice in ACA cases. That's just two examples. The body of the Constitution, as you put it is the supreme law of the land, they wrote it down for a reason, it's not a suggestion, it's the LAW. And every federal and State office holder swears an oath to protect and defend it.

It is the function of Congress to promulgate federal laws and it is the function of the USSC to deem the Constitutionality of those laws. What is it about that separation of power you don't understand?

How many times have we seen broad interpretations of the Constitution for the sake of partisan expediency . Interpretations of the Justices sometimes vary wildly from Constitutional narrative. Often the court is split. In effect that solitary fact validates my premise without question.

Why didn't you address my examples?

In the first ACA decision they found the penalty for not buying insurance unconstitutional. Then they declared it not to be an unconstitutional penalty, but a tax, in essence rewriting the law. Which they have no constitutional authority to do. At that point they should have declared the law unconstitutional and sent it back to congress to be fixed, but the didn't do that did they?

In the second example they ignored black letter text that appeared 9 different places in the law, which said no subsidies could go to States that didn't establish exchanges, and decided the intent of congress is everyone eligible for subsidies could get them regardless if the State had established an exchange. What they should have done is uphold the law as written, and left it to congress to fix it, they didn't.

So explain how those two examples are not encroaching into Article 1 powers. Thus obliterating the separation of powers.

Any explanation I submit to you won't change a thing. As "laymen" we can only speculate at best about the fragile line between interpretation and promulgation. I would have to take the time to look at the dissenting and majority opinions to get a sense of whether the line of demarcation regarding separation of powers was crossed.
From what I know about the majority decision, the government's case rested on three proposals for getting the ACA mandate Constitutionally legal. As a penalty, the mandate was unConstitutional under the Commerce Clause. But as a tax , the mandate was deemed Constitutional even though the actual word used in the law was" penalty."

This is the bone of contention that has sparked a torrent of controversy since the legal inception of the law. According to this link the tax approach was merely an interpretation and not an act of legislation by the Supreme Court:

How can the court call the mandate a tax if the law itself didn’t call it that?

The court is not bound to interpret laws exactly as they are written, but uses what it calls a “functional approach”—considering the substance of a law in addition to its formal language.

Under this approach, the court ruled that the penalty the law imposes on people who don’t buy health insurance “looks like a tax in many respects,” and that it is permissible under the court’s previous case law for several reasons: the amount of money due is “far less than the price of insurance” and it is collected by the IRS under normal means of taxation.

Ok, first, the congress and the president, while the ACA was being drafted and debated in congress, said time after time that the penalty was not a tax. It was never mentioned as a tax until government lawyers saw the penalty argument wasn't flying in oral arguments, so they pivoted. So this would take us back to the intent of congress the court supposedly used to ignore black letter law and authorize national subsidies in it's second opinion. How could the court ignore what congress and the president said all during the debate of the bill, and say it was all ignorance and uphold it as a tax, regardless of the stated intent of congress?

Now let's look past that question and continue to another dealing with that same opinion.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Would you agree that this clause prohibits direct taxation of the people by the federal government unless it's spread to the States according to population? I will assume your response will be in the affirmative since that's exactly what it says.

Having established this, the 16th Amendment provides for one exception to this clause. My B/U

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

What is the triggering event for this one exception to prohibition on direct taxation? Once again I will assume you agree it is "income". Keep in mind that the health insurance tax is levied after a taxpayers obligations are met under the 16th. So given this, how can the court invent a new and separate direct taxable event, of not having health insurance, on their own, without another amendment?

 

[Norman]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

You really believed Hillary, when she swore?

She is barely physically capable of speaking the truth... why would she do so in this case?

She will do whatever gets her the most power... and abiding the laws is the furthest thing from that.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, lets look at those points. My first question is do the Public Assistance IDs require proof of citizenship to get them? If not, they shouldn't be allowed for voter ID. I've already addressed this but I'll do it again. Early voting, the court said blacks tended to use the first 7 days of early voting more than others. They rolled them back to 10 days form 17 days. So why can't blacks continue to use the first 7 days of early voting? There may not have been enough activity to justify a full 17 days. Did the appeals court bother to check total utilization? Next, same day registration, who the hell came up with that stupid idea to begin with? Every state I've lived in you have to register a minimum of 30 days prior to the election, otherwise they have no way to verify the information before a vote is cast. The district court looked into all these and upheld the law, I think the appeals court got it wrong. You can disagree, and we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

The lower court obviously was all RW people with a partisan agenda.

So what happened to this: My B/U

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

I don't see a non sequitur in what I posted. If you think you see one, point to it!

How can you say a judge is following a partisan agenda, when you claim all judges follow the Constitution?

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

My reply was this.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You stated;

Article 5 was used to change it [amend the Constitution], meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

My response to that was this;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply.

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;

That Article [ARTICLE 5] is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;

You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to.

Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment?

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!

I won't argue semantics, run along and play with yourself.

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

You really believed Hillary, when she swore?

She is barely physically capable of speaking the truth... why would she do so in this case?

She will do whatever gets her the most power... and abiding the laws is the furthest thing from that.

Hell no, I don't know more than a couple of politicians that have even made an effort to comply with their oaths. I simply pointed to the oath as the constitutional standard.

 

[paulitician]

Constitution!? We don't need no stinkin Constitution!

That's where NWO Globalist Elites like Clinton, stand on the Constitution. It has to go. It's a big obstacle in creating their New World Order.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!
I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;
You stated;
My response to that was this;
So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply.

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;

That Article [ARTICLE 5] is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;

You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to.

Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment?

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!

I won't argue semantics, run along and play with yourself.

Its got nothing to do with semantics and you fucking know it you Gawd Damn coward! I'll take that as your admission of error, Tex! And you're still all bark and no fucking bite, shorty!

 

[OKTexas]

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply.

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;

That Article [ARTICLE 5] is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;

You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to.

Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment?

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!

I won't argue semantics, run along and play with yourself.

Its got nothing to do with semantics and you fucking know it you Gawd Damn coward! I'll take that as your admission of error, Tex! And you're still all bark and no fucking bite, shorty!

Fuck off asshole, the 14th wouldn't have been possible without Article 5. It's the REQUIRED process for any amendment, the 14th was the result of the process. It can also be argued that the 13th actually changed the 3/5ths clause because it eliminated slavery and involuntary servitude, which they also used Article 5 to pass.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump

They nominate, they don't appoint. Get back to me when you have a clue. Also I'm not surprised you have no concern that she never mentioned the Constitution when considering a person for the court. You have no respect for it yourself.

Oh brother...get back to me when you get a life.

Get back to us when you find a brain.

 

[candycorn]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump

They nominate, they don't appoint. Get back to me when you have a clue. Also I'm not surprised you have no concern that she never mentioned the Constitution when considering a person for the court. You have no respect for it yourself.

Oh brother...get back to me when you get a life.

Get back to us when you find a brain.

Yours is probably laying around somewhere, or you’re sitting on it.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're a fucking liar. AGAIN, you ignore my second paragraph in my first response so here it is again for the third time you fucking jerk;
Your lying and deflecting like a scared child simply to keep from having to admit you were wrong yet again, you fucking dipstick! You're one really dishonest son-of-a-bitch! In you second sentence you wrote this idiocy as if you can't understand a simple English sentence;
Those were examples that went over your head shorty, notwithstanding your "claim" of being 6'2"! Here is what I wrote that you are doing such a fucked up job trying to wiggle around in your deflection, you fucking weasel;
You were wrong, you fucking idiot, when you claimed that Article V was something more that the formal Constitutional INSTRUCTION MANUAL to amend the Constitution. Amendment XIV amended the Constitution and struck out of the LAW the 3/5ths compromise as part of its Constitutional restructuring. Article V did not, fool. You are Constitutionally DUMB and IGNORANT and bound to remain that way, you sawed off piece of shit! But feel free to continue your stupidity if you wish you fucking sadist!

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment?

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!

I won't argue semantics, run along and play with yourself.

Its got nothing to do with semantics and you fucking know it you Gawd Damn coward! I'll take that as your admission of error, Tex! And you're still all bark and no fucking bite, shorty!

Fuck off asshole, the 14th wouldn't have been possible without Article 5. It's the REQUIRED process for any amendment, the 14th was the result of the process. It can also be argued that the 13th actually changed the 3/5ths clause because it eliminated slavery and involuntary servitude, which they also used Article 5 to pass.

OK, we'll do this a fifth time given you are so fucking THICK and STUPID!

...Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CHANGE A FUCKING THING YOU IDIOT! Only a RATIFIED AMENDMENT can change/alter/AMEND the Constitution you fucking know nothing! Regardless of how you wish to cast or frame it Article V, in and of itself, cannot amend the constitution as you claimed way back on page 13 you fucking lump of ignorant shit! ONLY A RATIFIED AMENDMENT has the power to change/alter/AMEND the Constitution! ONLY A RATIFIED AMENDMENT can change/alter/AMEND the Constitution, "...meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution."

Amendment XIII is not relevant to your erroneous assertion re: Article V, so quit trying to conflate more of your bullshit with your dodge, deflect and dance to avoid looking so uninformed and dismally stupid, and just be honest and admit your ignorant error, fool!

You're are making yourself appear even more pathetic with each of post, cowboy! Stupid heaped on stupid making a Texas size pile of STUPID, little fella!

 

[OKTexas]

Ok hero, I went back and read what was said again and we were both wrong. You did mention the 3/5ths clause in your first post, my bad. But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment? Can you say, Article 5, which was my original point, they used the proper process to change the Constitution, they didn't just ignore it and do what ever the hell they wanted to, the way their doing it today did they, they did it right.

But you also said Article 5 was not used to change it, you said it was the 14th Amendment that changed it, not Article 5. Well tell me hero, what constitutional process allowed them to pass the 14th Amendment?

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!

I won't argue semantics, run along and play with yourself.

Its got nothing to do with semantics and you fucking know it you Gawd Damn coward! I'll take that as your admission of error, Tex! And you're still all bark and no fucking bite, shorty!

Fuck off asshole, the 14th wouldn't have been possible without Article 5. It's the REQUIRED process for any amendment, the 14th was the result of the process. It can also be argued that the 13th actually changed the 3/5ths clause because it eliminated slavery and involuntary servitude, which they also used Article 5 to pass.

OK, we'll do this a fifth time given you are so fucking THICK and STUPID!

...Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CHANGE A FUCKING THING YOU IDIOT! Only a RATIFIED AMENDMENT can change/alter/AMEND the Constitution you fucking know nothing! Regardless of how you wish to cast or frame it Article V, in and of itself, cannot amend the constitution as you claimed way back on page 13 you fucking lump of ignorant shit! ONLY A RATIFIED AMENDMENT has the power to change/alter/AMEND the Constitution! ONLY A RATIFIED AMENDMENT can change/alter/AMEND the Constitution, "...meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution."

Amendment XIII is not relevant to your erroneous assertion re: Article V, so quit trying to conflate more of your bullshit with your dodge, deflect and dance to avoid looking so uninformed and dismally stupid, and just be honest and admit your ignorant error, fool!

You're are making yourself appear even more pathetic with each of post, cowboy! Stupid heaped on stupid making a Texas size pile of STUPID, little fella!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

For the fourth time you fucking imbecile;
Just how in the fuck does Article V, in and of itself, act upon the Constitution to permanently alter, change or amend that social contract. The short and easy answer is that it DOES NOT! ONLY a ratified amendment can make a permanent change to the Constitution, you IDIOT! Article V is merely the Constitutional means/mechanism/PROCESS to amend the Constitution. The ratified amendment is the instrument which CHANGES, alters, amends the Constitution, shit for brains. You were wrong all the way along, but you're too damn cowardly to take responsibility for your error, Tex. And you remain "All hat and No Cattle" little fella!

Look at what you wrote, fool! "Article 5 was used to change it...." That is the pure BULLSHIT, to which I responded, asshole. Article XIV changed and erased the 3/5ths compromise at Article 1, § 2, Cls.3 changing the Law of the Land. You're just too damn proud and fucking stupid to admit you were wrong, Tex!

I won't argue semantics, run along and play with yourself.

Its got nothing to do with semantics and you fucking know it you Gawd Damn coward! I'll take that as your admission of error, Tex! And you're still all bark and no fucking bite, shorty!

Fuck off asshole, the 14th wouldn't have been possible without Article 5. It's the REQUIRED process for any amendment, the 14th was the result of the process. It can also be argued that the 13th actually changed the 3/5ths clause because it eliminated slavery and involuntary servitude, which they also used Article 5 to pass.

OK, we'll do this a fifth time given you are so fucking THICK and STUPID!

...Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CHANGE A FUCKING THING YOU IDIOT! Only a RATIFIED AMENDMENT can change/alter/AMEND the Constitution you fucking know nothing! Regardless of how you wish to cast or frame it Article V, in and of itself, cannot amend the constitution as you claimed way back on page 13 you fucking lump of ignorant shit! ONLY A RATIFIED AMENDMENT has the power to change/alter/AMEND the Constitution! ONLY A RATIFIED AMENDMENT can change/alter/AMEND the Constitution, "...meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution."

Amendment XIII is not relevant to your erroneous assertion re: Article V, so quit trying to conflate more of your bullshit with your dodge, deflect and dance to avoid looking so uninformed and dismally stupid, and just be honest and admit your ignorant error, fool!

You're are making yourself appear even more pathetic with each of post, cowboy! Stupid heaped on stupid making a Texas size pile of STUPID, little fella!

I'll take that as your final admission of error, fool, given you are incapable of any further idiotic defense of your faulty assertion regarding Article V! It's been fun, little fella! You run along now and play with the other little boys during recess...there's a good lad!

 

[HnL]

A woman who defends child-rapist and a husband who rapes vs some other guy who talks bawdy about women.

Hmmm. Let's see.

Show us where Bill Clinton was convicted of child rape or any kind of rape.

You're either deliberately obtuse or just stupid. I did not suggest Bill had been convicted of raping children or indeed had ever raped one.

I'm going with just plain stupid.

Oh, I see, you prefer mob rule, and you despise our constitutionally guaranteed rights to trial by a jury of our peers and the right to defend ourselves, EVEN WHEN accused of child rape.

Sorry, I will stick with the woman who took the thankless job, because it was her civic duty as a good American who believes in service to her country.

Obviously, you won't.

 

[Meathead]

A woman who defends child-rapist and a husband who rapes vs some other guy who talks bawdy about women.

Hmmm. Let's see.

Show us where Bill Clinton was convicted of child rape or any kind of rape.

You're either deliberately obtuse or just stupid. I did not suggest Bill had been convicted of raping children or indeed had ever raped one.

I'm going with just plain stupid.

Oh, I see, you prefer mob rule, and you despise our constitutionally guaranteed rights to trial by a jury of our peers and the right to defend ourselves, EVEN WHEN accused of child rape.

Sorry, I will stick with the woman who took the thankless job, because it was her civic duty as a good American who believes in service to her country.

Obviously, you won't.

No, I understand these rights. It is the boasting about getting a child rapist off that gets to me. When it is done by someone who carries on about their life-long concern with women and families that it becomes even more intolerable.

And she damn well knew he was guilty. Most people, even lawyers, would be embarrassed.

 

[HnL]

No, I understand these rights. It is the boasting about getting a child rapist off that gets to me. When it is done by someone who carries on about their life-long concern with women and families that it becomes even more intolerable.

And she down well knew he was guilty. Most people, even lawyers, would be embarrassed.

[]

Quote mining is a fancy way of lying.

First, the man was convicted of rape. He didn't get off.

Second, her job was do represent the man. The system would be a joke if people like her didn't do their jobs. We would only have kangaroo courts.

 

[JQPublic1]

Since you ignored this: (Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”} I guess there is no point in further discussing this issue.

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

The lower court obviously was all RW people with a partisan agenda.

So what happened to this: My B/U

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

I don't see a non sequitur in what I posted. If you think you see one, point to it!

How can you say a judge is following a partisan agenda, when you claim all judges follow the Constitution?

Did you even bother to read the second part of the paragraph you are referring to? It isn't the Constitutional jargon that counts it is the subjective interpretation of it by the justices that counts.
If the coarse litany of the original Constitutional text was considered infallible and immutable we wouldn't need a Supreme Court at all.

 

[OKTexas]

And all that was considered by the lower court. So we'll agree to disagree which got it right.

The lower court obviously was all RW people with a partisan agenda.

So what happened to this: My B/U

All judges follow the Constitution. it is the interpretation of it that is problematic.
Those that think the way we do are seen as following the Constitution regardless of what the body of the document reads.

I don't see a non sequitur in what I posted. If you think you see one, point to it!

How can you say a judge is following a partisan agenda, when you claim all judges follow the Constitution?

Did you even bother to read the second part of the paragraph you are referring to? It isn't the Constitutional jargon that counts it is the subjective interpretation of it by the justices that counts.
If the coarse litany of the original Constitutional text was considered infallible and immutable we wouldn't need a Supreme Court at all.

Interpretations that are contrary to the text are violations, not interpretations. The Constitution is a living document only as far as it is properly amended, not by judges arbitrarily redefining its meaning, which they have been doing for decades. If you're up for a challenging read, I would suggest "Men In Black", it's a chronicle of the supreme court usurping the Constitution.