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.
Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.
Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.
14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
Perfectly legal for the government to discriminate.
No homos in the military, no handicapped for specific jobs, no women in combat, must be a certain age to be President and be in the military, government supported universities have a plethora of age, racial and sexual discriminations, etc etc.
Not listed is the Electoral College, which is blind to discrimination of all types.
It should be. Its dumb that its not.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.
What discrimination? Using that logic, then polygamy also has to be legalized.
Mark
Stacy Abrams is not only ugly but she is ignorant and stupid tooFunny how everyone says the Left hate America.
Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College
Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
Perfectly legal for the government to discriminate.
No homos in the military, no handicapped for specific jobs, no women in combat, must be a certain age to be President and be in the military, government supported universities have a plethora of age, racial and sexual discriminations, etc etc.
Not listed is the Electoral College, which is blind to discrimination of all types.
I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
Perfectly legal for the government to discriminate.
No homos in the military, no handicapped for specific jobs, no women in combat, must be a certain age to be President and be in the military, government supported universities have a plethora of age, racial and sexual discriminations, etc etc.
Not listed is the Electoral College, which is blind to discrimination of all types.
And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?I have no doubt that this failed Democrat politico would "go around" the Constitution to get her desired result.
But there is a deeper message in this, one that must not be ignored.
The political Left has, time after time, "gone around" the Constitution to get what it wants, usually through the efforts of Constitution-averse judges and justices.
When The Left wanted to eliminate the Death Penalty, they found a small cabal of Supreme Court justices who created a minefield of obstacles to capital punishment, basically rendering most of the capital punishment laws in the United States "unconstitutional" for the foreseeable future. It took many years for the state legislatures to navigate this minefield and restore the ultimate punishment that the public demanded. Even tough the CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, so it's not really questionable, Constitutionally speaking. Where was their respect for democratic principles on this issue?
When The Left wanted to create a womens' right to get an abortion, they turned to the courts. There was NO CHANCE of achieving their objective through DEMOCRATIC MEANS, according to the Amendment procedures for the Constitution. Even today, The Left doesn't even mention the possibility of getting a Constitutional amendment to solidify a woman's "right to choose," because they know that such an Amendment would never get enough popular support. So much for Democracy, eh?
When The Left wanted "gay marriage," they LOST in every single state where the public was given a choice in the matter, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. The measure lost. every time And yet, a series of COURT decisions implemented this dramatic change in Constitutional law in a relatively brief period, basically using the Full Faith & Credit clause as a stake in the heart of traditional marriage. The Left wasn't so keen on employing the principles of "democracy" on that issue, were they?
Now they want socialized medicine, something that is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment. But are they willing to employ democratic principles to have the Constitution amended to permit the Federal Government from getting into the health insurance business? Not on your life. They don't even talk about it.
In fact, it seems like the ONLY ISSUE where The Left is keen to apply "democratic" principles in in the election of the next President. And yet, they don't even speak of the logical course of action - the only legitimate course of action: The passage of a Constitutional Amendment to have the Presidency decided by popular vote.
Democrats are scum. Manifestly.
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
Perfectly legal for the government to discriminate.
No homos in the military, no handicapped for specific jobs, no women in combat, must be a certain age to be President and be in the military, government supported universities have a plethora of age, racial and sexual discriminations, etc etc.
Not listed is the Electoral College, which is blind to discrimination of all types.
And why are Democrats going State by State to choose delegates?Dimms are hypocrites.
Bernie got more votes than Mayor Pete in Iowa. Yet, Pete won the delegates.
Make up your mind, Dimms. Popular vote or not?
I0 year olds? I hope notAnd one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
You should be against institutional discrimination if you are for the constitution.
I will add the govt should have never gotten involved with marriage.Where in the constitution does it say the govt has a right to discriminate?
Perfectly legal for the government to discriminate.
No homos in the military, no handicapped for specific jobs, no women in combat, must be a certain age to be President and be in the military, government supported universities have a plethora of age, racial and sexual discriminations, etc etc.
Not listed is the Electoral College, which is blind to discrimination of all types.
Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.
Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College
Pedophillia is being pushed by the Left heavily now. Just a matter of time.I0 year olds? I hope notAnd one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.Perfectly legal for the government to discriminate.
No homos in the military, no handicapped for specific jobs, no women in combat, must be a certain age to be President and be in the military, government supported universities have a plethora of age, racial and sexual discriminations, etc etc.
Not listed is the Electoral College, which is blind to discrimination of all types.
Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.
Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College
I saw that pete got 3 more votes and got 2 more delegates than bernieDimms are hypocrites.
Bernie got more votes than Mayor Pete in Iowa. Yet, Pete won the delegates.
Make up your mind, Dimms. Popular vote or not?
