What's new

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

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
72,942
Reaction score
5,123
Points
1,855
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
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.
Didn't blacks discriminate against a white person in 2008 and voted for a person because of the color of his skin?
 

LeftofLeft

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
10,652
Reaction score
1,946
Points
280
That So-called racist Electoral College sure wasn’t a factor in 2008 or 2012.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
49,771
Reaction score
7,192
Points
1,840
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.
They would also try everything they could to nullify the law before electors were sent to the EC.
 

Bruce_T_Laney

Platinum Member
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
33,557
Reaction score
4,843
Points
1,140
Location
Hell
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.
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.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
 

TheParser

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
202
Points
140
To be fair to Ms. Abrams, many other self-identified liberals proudly admit that they are studying ways to "go around" the Constitution.

To some people, the Constitution was written by a bunch of old Caucasian racists.

Thus, it is just an outdated piece of paper that should be ignored.

In the coming decades, as the population profile continues its inexorable change, the Constitution will become a forgotten relic of the past. Sanctuary cities and states, for example, are how many people are giving the finger to the Constitution.
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
22,529
Reaction score
2,294
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
22,529
Reaction score
2,294
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
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.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...

I think it's fine if they demand a church marry them, and it's also perfectly fine for the church to say "no".
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
65,705
Reaction score
10,005
Points
2,030
Umm no.
Saying gays shouldnt get married. Or someone couldn't marry 5 people IS regulating it.

So is saying a 10 year old can't marry.

Mark
Lol come on dude. Geez
What? You act "'enlightened" until its an activity you don't agree with. So, heres a question. Lets say an 11 year old girl hits puberty, why does society tell her she is not ready to have sex when nature clearly says she is? You seem to believe that regulation is bad, so how about for her?

Mark
You have went from adult gays to children.
This is ridiculous. Good day.
Oh, I get it. You CAN regulate in society if you want to. And you do want to.

Mark
We are talking about marriage. Now you are talking about fucking kids and correlating the 2.
Grow up.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
65,705
Reaction score
10,005
Points
2,030
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.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
Exactly. Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.
They should have left marriage a religious institution.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
56,906
Reaction score
7,122
Points
1,830
Location
Chicago
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.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
Exactly. Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.
They should have left marriage a religious institution.
Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.

What perks?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
24,780
Reaction score
3,467
Points
290
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.
wouldn't affirmative action be a form of discrimination? it means if you are a certain color you get or lose benefits due to said color or ethnic background.

trying to "level" the field is doing exactly what you're "leveling" against.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
65,705
Reaction score
10,005
Points
2,030
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.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
Exactly. Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.
They should have left marriage a religious institution.
Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.

What perks?
Tax deductions, filing jointly, social security, inheritance..
If i look i can probably find more.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
65,705
Reaction score
10,005
Points
2,030
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.
wouldn't affirmative action be a form of discrimination? it means if you are a certain color you get or lose benefits due to said color or ethnic background.

trying to "level" the field is doing exactly what you're "leveling" against.
Indeed it is. So is public accommodation laws.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
56,906
Reaction score
7,122
Points
1,830
Location
Chicago
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.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
Exactly. Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.
They should have left marriage a religious institution.
Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.

What perks?
Tax deductions, filing jointly, social security, inheritance..
If i look i can probably find more.
Tax deductions? Single people don't get those?
Filing jointly? Did you ever hear of the marriage penalty?
You don't need to get married to inherit...….
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
65,705
Reaction score
10,005
Points
2,030
And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
Exactly. Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.
They should have left marriage a religious institution.
Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.

What perks?
Tax deductions, filing jointly, social security, inheritance..
If i look i can probably find more.
Tax deductions? Single people don't get those?
Filing jointly? Did you ever hear of the marriage penalty?
You don't need to get married to inherit...….
Its more limited when you are single.
If one spouse works and the other doesn't, joint filing does wonders.
No you don't but if you were married there are no taxes.
In other words, that is all perks.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
56,906
Reaction score
7,122
Points
1,830
Location
Chicago
Harley is not FLDS and Harley point if I am correct is the Government issues the license which make them involved.

Personally I do not see any issue with gay marriage but where I draw the line is if a gay couple demand a church to marry them.

Let the county government do the marriage and leave the religious society alone...
Exactly. Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.
They should have left marriage a religious institution.
Plus the govt gives you perks for being married with taxes and such.

What perks?
Tax deductions, filing jointly, social security, inheritance..
If i look i can probably find more.
Tax deductions? Single people don't get those?
Filing jointly? Did you ever hear of the marriage penalty?
You don't need to get married to inherit...….
Its more limited when you are single.
If one spouse works and the other doesn't, joint filing does wonders.
No you don't but if you were married there are no taxes.
In other words, that is all perks.
Until recently, the married standard deduction was less than double the single standard deduction.
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top