Stacey Abrams Says She’d ‘Go Around Constitution’ To End ‘Racist’ Electoral College

[TNHarley]

14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.

Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.

I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.

And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.

I0 year olds? I hope not

Pedophillia is being pushed by the Left heavily now. Just a matter of time.

Going back to like it was 2000 years ago. Now thats progress!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?
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.

Yes, the government can discriminate. However your "no women in combat" example has gone by the wayside. Do try and keep current.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

As a member of Congress sworn to uphold it, there is no way AROUND the constitution.

Unfortunately history is filled with events going around the Constitution. Fortunately right now we have a good SCOTUS making that unlikely.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.

I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.

And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.

I0 year olds? I hope not

Pedophillia is being pushed by the Left heavily now. Just a matter of time.

Going back to like it was 2000 years ago. Now thats progress!

Why do you think they don’t teach very much history in public schools now?

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?
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.

Yes, the government can discriminate. However your "no women in combat" example has gone by the wayside. Do try and keep current.

OK. 12 women serve in combat roles in the US military.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?
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.

Yes, the government can discriminate. However your "no women in combat" example has gone by the wayside. Do try and keep current.

OK. 12 women serve in combat roles in the US military.

That is using a limited definition of combat roles.

 

[bendog]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Do you know how the EC came into being?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Do you know how the EC came into being?

Staci Abrams apparently does not.

 

[bendog]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Do you know how the EC came into being?

Staci Abrams apparently does not.

You certainly don't. LOL

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't think you can go around the constitution. Even the interstate compact is problematic. No I think we need a new amendment to elect the President by popular vote.

 

[bripat9643]

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?
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

Also incest.

 

[bendog]

I don't think you can go around the constitution. Even the interstate compact is problematic. No I think we need a new amendment to elect the President by popular vote.

I dunno. It's not deniable that the EC is premised upon the counting slaves as partial "people" for allocating congressional seats. That changed with emancipation and voting rights. But without counting slaves, there'd be no EC today.

The constitution gives states the power to select electors, and doesn't limit it. So, I don't see why the compact is unconstitutional. I think we'd be better off just agreeing to allocate EVs in each state according to proportional voting. That way in States like Wyoming an individual vote would be more powerful than an individ vote in say …. Texas or Fla. Or Calif or NY

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think you can go around the constitution. Even the interstate compact is problematic. No I think we need a new amendment to elect the President by popular vote.

I dunno. It's not deniable that the EC is premised upon the counting slaves as partial "people" for allocating congressional seats. That changed with emancipation and voting rights. But without counting slaves, there'd be no EC today.

The constitution gives states the power to select electors, and doesn't limit it. So, I don't see why the compact is unconstitutional. I think we'd be better off just agreeing to allocate EVs in each state according to proportional voting. That way in States like Wyoming an individual vote would be more powerful than an individ vote in say …. Texas or Fla. Or Calif or NY

It's unconstitutional because there are 5 conservatives on the SC.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

14th amendment would make it illegal for the govt not to give a marriage license for being gay.

Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.

I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.

And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.

I0 year olds? I hope not

Why not? Now you want the government to regulate marriage?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Do you know how the EC came into being?

Staci Abrams apparently does not.

You certainly don't. LOL

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

 

[Dick Foster]

I don't think you can go around the constitution. Even the interstate compact is problematic. No I think we need a new amendment to elect the President by popular vote.

We sure as hell don't need it but that's exactly what would be required. Good ******* luck getting it past 3/4 of the states, most of which would lose their representation and authority if the electoral college ended and all future elections should be decided by the most fucked up and out of touch states of New York and California alone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Considering several States are already trying this by giving away their EV's to the popular vote winner, I am not surprised.

It would amuse the hell out of me if one of these blue states that've signed on to this little "pact" were forced under it to give their electors to the Republican candidate. The screams would be audible all over the world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think you can go around the constitution. Even the interstate compact is problematic. No I think we need a new amendment to elect the President by popular vote.

I dunno. It's not deniable that the EC is premised upon the counting slaves as partial "people" for allocating congressional seats. That changed with emancipation and voting rights. But without counting slaves, there'd be no EC today.

The constitution gives states the power to select electors, and doesn't limit it. So, I don't see why the compact is unconstitutional. I think we'd be better off just agreeing to allocate EVs in each state according to proportional voting. That way in States like Wyoming an individual vote would be more powerful than an individ vote in say …. Texas or Fla. Or Calif or NY

Only leftists educated in public school could consider it "racist against black people" to give LESS power to the people who were at that time enslaving black people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think there's an excellent chance that Trump will not only win the 2020 election, but the "popular vote" as well. If he does, we'll all get to enjoy pointing out to the states who've signed this pact that if it had been in effect, their electoral votes would have gone to him, even though he didn't win the vote in their state.

 

[Preacher]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Jesus, wish Buckwheat there would **** off. You would think she would have gotten the message when the voters here in Georgia including me told her NO we don't want you as governor. Instead she has WHINED and COMPLAINED like Clinton did after she lost in 16.