ADVERTISEMENT

"Blatantly unconstitutional"

Does 'owning' black people qualify as low moral character in your esteemed view?
Slavery has always been the issue that drives America apart. We never really figured out a way to live with it or live with out it. And God knows, America has wrestled with the institution of slavery and its remaining guilt after emancipation and Civil Rights legislation to this very day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
It took Trump only hours to break the oath he took on Monday to protect and defend the constitution with his absurd executive order to nullify birth-right citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment.
Didn't the libtards try to use the 14th amendment to have Trump thrown off the presidential ballot in which the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against?
 
But how could the FF have seen a stable genius such as Trump in America’s future? Only the transacted Supreme Court, bought and paid for by Trump and Friend, have the advantage of understanding The Trump brain….something the FF could have dearly learned from.
Trump appointed 3 of the 9 Justices, so of course he bought and paid for it.
 
Didn't the libtards try to use the 14th amendment to have Trump thrown off the presidential ballot in which the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against?

Didn't the libtards try to use the 14th amendment to have Trump thrown off the presidential ballot in which the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against?
14-3 does prohibit someone who insurrected against the nation from being in the ballot…but that case was never adjudicated. (Trump did commit treason against the nation on 1/6/21.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcherod
Slavery gas always been the issue that drives America apart. We never really figured out a way to live with it or life with out it. And Gid knows, America has wrestled with the institution of slavery and its remaining guilt after emancipation and Civil Rights legislation to this very day.
Okay, I guess I don't really see how slavery divides us today. The guilt part (some of which is used to exploit political gains) I can agree with you on.

My opinion is that all politicians are sociopaths and their 'awfulness' is totally subjective; based on which political party or philosophy you identify with. 🤷‍♂️
 
474694120_1373643080671402_3907972917296335297_n.jpg
 
Okay, I guess I don't really see how slavery divides us today. The guilt part (some of which is used to exploit political gains) I can agree with you on.

My opinion is that all politicians are sociopaths and their 'awfulness' is totally subjective; based on which political party or philosophy you identify with. 🤷‍♂️
All? There’s not a single one of them that resonated consistently with you over the decades? Who has been telling exactly how it is and what it is.

I get that there are few. Yet those few have been absolutely right every single time.
 
Does 'owning' black people qualify as low moral character in your esteemed view?
It means the Founding Fathers were men, with both good and bad in themselves. Many of them recognized this as a flaw, but were forced to accept the reality that they could create a new nation, or they could end slavery. They couldn't do both.
 
All? There’s not a single one of them that resonated consistently with you over the decades? Who has been telling exactly how it is and what it is.

I get that there are few. Yet those few have been absolutely right every single time.
There were a few. Ron Paul for one, but that was a long time ago.

The system is corrupt and too far gone to save, imo. But I watch and follow along for the entertainment. 🥴
 
There were a few. Ron Paul for one, but that was a long time ago.

The system is corrupt and too far gone to save, imo. But I watch and follow along for the entertainment. 🥴
Bullshit. You watch and follow along because it might someday affect those you care for. And you want to be ready to have an effect on those changes.

My dude. Those days are now.
 
It means the Founding Fathers were men, with both good and bad in themselves. Many of them recognized this as a flaw, but were forced to accept the reality that they could create a new nation, or they could end slavery. They couldn't do both.
So they were no better than King George, is what you're saying.

I guess tyrannical oppression is in the eye of the beholder, huh?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sober_teacher
Bullshit. You watch and follow along because it might someday affect those you care for. And you want to be ready to have an effect on those changes.

My dude. Those days are now.
Oh, it already does affect those I care for.

But my one vote in a nation of 350 million people or my $25 donation in an election season where sixteen BILLION dollars was spent on all the various federal offices wouldn't mean squat.

So I watch and I comment but in the end ?
It's just 🍞 and 🎪's, baby!
 
Oh, it already does affect those I care for.

But my one vote in a nation of 350 million people or my $25 donation in an election season where sixteen BILLION dollars was spent on all the various federal offices wouldn't mean squat.

So I watch and I comment but in the end ?
It's just 🍞 and 🎪's, baby!
It’s just bread and parties?
 
It’s just bread and parties?
"Bread and circuses" (or "bread and games"; from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to Juvenal (Satires, Satire X), a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century AD, and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts.

In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction, or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace,[1] by offering a palliative: for example food (bread) or entertainment (circuses). Juvenal originally used it to decry the "selfishness" of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase implies a population's erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.
 
"Bread and circuses" (or "bread and games"; from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to Juvenal (Satires, Satire X), a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century AD, and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts.

In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction, or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace,[1] by offering a palliative: for example food (bread) or entertainment (circuses). Juvenal originally used it to decry the "selfishness" of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase implies a population's erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.
As someone who has read the files of the results of our erosion of civic duties at a juvenile level. I take offense to that.

In Iowa, I don’t wish the nights I’ve worked on anyone.

Please tell me more about the degenerates, as I’m sure you’ve worked at MHI in Independence.

Hey have you ever had to restrain a 15 year old from trying to cut himself?
 
You just simply cannot admit anything Trump does is wrong. It is clear,y written in the 14th amendment, so there is no legal battle to be had, nor can Congress change it.

JFC Trump has broken you.
It is not clearly written. Judgements have be drawn about it sure. But clear? I don't think so.

This will now finally be answered by the court.

If Trump loses, he will disagree and move on.

If Trump wins, what will you say to that?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sober_teacher
As someone who has read the files of the results of our erosion of civic duties at a juvenile level. I take offense to that.

In Iowa, I don’t wish the nights I’ve worked on anyone.

Please tell me more about the degenerates, as I’m sure you’ve worked at MHI in Independence.

Hey have you ever had to restrain a 15 year old from trying to cut himself?
You work at MHI?
 
As someone who has read the files of the results of our erosion of civic duties at a juvenile level. I take offense to that.

In Iowa, I don’t wish the nights I’ve worked on anyone.

Please tell me more about the degenerates, as I’m sure you’ve worked at MHI in Independence.

Hey have you ever had to restrain a 15 year old from trying to cut himself?
I don't understand why people get so angry when someone expresses an opinion.

This government keeps growing and doing whatever it wishes - at home and abroad - and my vote will do nothing to change it or stop it.

'Bread and circuses' is just an expression. They keep our bellies full of shitty food and provide us with plenty of distractions so that the majority of people will never even begin to see the big picture.

And no, I've never worked at MHI.
 
It is not clearly written. Judgements have be drawn about it sure. But clear? I don't think so.

This will now finally be answered by the court.

If Trump loses, he will disagree and move on.

If Trump wins, what will you say to that?
It is clearly written, and there is no question to “finally” be answered. You might as well support an EO saying the 19th amendment does not give women the right to vote, then say “Well now the question will finally be answered.”

If Trump loses, there is no reason to think he will move on, just saying something that absurd tells us his penis is tickling your tonsils.

And if he wins, I will say it’s unsurprising that a SCOTUS hand picked to ignore the constitution in favor of hyper-partisanship might give us a modern day Dred Scott ruling.
 
It is clearly written, and there is no question to “finally” be answered. You might as well support an EO saying the 19th amendment does not give women the right to vote, then say “Well now the question will finally be answered.”

If Trump loses, there is no reason to think he will move on, just saying something that absurd tells us his penis is tickling your tonsils.

And if he wins, I will say it’s unsurprising that a SCOTUS hand picked to ignore the constitution in favor of hyper-partisanship might give us a modern day Dred Scott ruling.
It’s “pretty” clearly written, with a little weirdness around the “jurisdiction” clause.

But remember, we’re not in a hypertextuslism world. We’re in an Originalism world, where you consider original meaning and you have some interpretive flexibility as to how that meaning can be preserved today.

To wit, obviously 14a has a postwar context. But it has much more than even that. At the time, and really right up to about the dawn of the 20th century, we were a nation of relatively unregulated immigration, and in fact were affirmatively pro immigration and pro population growth via citizenship. Manifest destiny and all. I’d go so far as to say it’s in our top 5 core values/dna. So while the jurisdiction language is a little squishy (because I think it’s used in an archaic sense), the (way) better Originalism argument is to read the birth citizenship language pretty much for what it says (subject-verb-object), and to take the approach that whatever the jurisdiction limit/reference means, it should be construed narrowly to preserve the core value. STated differently, there is a presumption of birthright citizenship unless clearly rebutted.
 
Last edited:
much like the 2nd amendment was written for an long ago time, so is this one.
Can anyone on this board give a good reason for birthright citizenship in this day and age? Trump may be the biggest retard every on a great many things but this one????? who the F cares.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT