Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#90 : July 10, 2013, 08:10:05 PM

I love how people act as though they have won an argument that they've never actually engaged in. Well Vince, how about this. Whatever point you are trying to make is wrong, and I've won the debate that we never had. So there. You say you've won, and I say I've won, and since we never actually debated, you can't prove that I didn't.

You are the one thinking about winning and losing and calling posts a "debate."  I don't see it that way at all.  You cant have a debate with the Black Hole . .  you can waste a lot of time . .  but that is about it. .  this post is a great example, you've been arguing about judicial review but that is not even the real issue, the real issue is one of your liberal causes got knocked down .  . you dont like the result

Vince, you didn't even make a good argument to refute my statements about judicial review, which is why you decided to make a switch to attacking me personally by levying your go-to "you're a partisan and I'm not" crap that you do in every single argument to avoid having to address actual data points in an argument.

What is it you like to say? If you have to attack the defendant's character, it's usually the sign of a weak case?

silly.  let me send you off again with a very simple request, a chance for you to prove me wrong, to show me that you are NOT just upset with the result.  Are you ready?  Okay . . .  now . . .

go find me ANY OTHER SCOTUS RELATED THREAD . . . where you have in the past, before I mentioned it . . .  .even raised judicial review as an issue.

I posted that challenge a couple days ago I think . . .  and yet nothing from you . .  a guy who thinks posting is about "win" or "lose" in a "debate."  I gave you an easy chance to "win" a "debate" . . .  and yet nothing . . .

Go ahead . . . I am waiting . .

So your exit strategy from having to continue to defend a position that you have failed to defend is to suggest that because I didn't raise it sooner, you won't address it now. How "Vinceonian" of you...


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20288
Offline
#91 : July 10, 2013, 09:41:45 PM

Yeah, you got me ... It's an "exit strategy" because you beat me up so much with your Internet knowledge. Well done. ... I am going to exit now....using my strategy ... Ouch .... You hurt me ....

Guess you couldn't find even a single post? Yeah....thought so :-)

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#92 : July 11, 2013, 10:09:52 AM

"Well Vince, how about this. Whatever point you are trying to make is wrong,"

Always it has been thus, always it shall be so.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#93 : July 11, 2013, 12:46:11 PM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

But maybe it should.

Then perhaps maybe we should revoke the 14th amendment, because that's the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to require preclearance against whichever states that it determines needs it.

edit: 14th and 15th amendments...


I was thinking more along the lines of a New Amendment requiring ALL laws to be reviewed every 10 yrs and repealed or edited based on changes in the country/society.

I'd also like an amendment forcing congress to swear an oath that they "read and understood" every bill before they could vote on it. If a quorum can't swear the oath, the vote on the bill is delayed.


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#94 : July 11, 2013, 12:49:33 PM

That would cripple the government. An outstanding idea, I say.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#95 : July 11, 2013, 12:54:42 PM

That would cripple the government. An outstanding idea, I say.


It means that to get that $170,000/yr with free HC and a lifetime pension after 2yrs job, you actually have to do some work


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#96 : July 11, 2013, 01:00:16 PM

You can pass the amendment, but hopefully SCOTUS won't simply arbitrarily pick and choose what parts of it that they want to enforce and what parts of it they don't. They can do that, you know...


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#97 : July 11, 2013, 01:08:52 PM


How does the portion of the voting rights act that was struck down violate the constitution when there is no constitutional requirement that suggests that congress "has to" change the law to "fit current conditions"? The conservative majority invented this Constitutional requirement. It doesn't really exist.

But maybe it should.

Then perhaps maybe we should revoke the 14th amendment, because that's the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to require preclearance against whichever states that it determines needs it.

edit: 14th and 15th amendments...

Actually the 14th does need an edit.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The blue part should be amended to

No State nor the United States shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State or the United States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now was the leaving out of "nor the United States" an oversight or was that an intentional act by the post-war govt. to shift power from the states and to the Fed.?


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#98 : July 11, 2013, 01:14:46 PM

"nor shall... the United States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

That one pretty much went down the crapper.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#99 : July 11, 2013, 01:17:17 PM

Don't know. That's certainly an interesting question. In all honesty, if I had to guess, it would be that it was probably a little of both. Never the less, it's in the Constitution. Was brought up, passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ratified by the states. So power grab or not, it is what it is.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#100 : July 11, 2013, 01:44:40 PM

Don't know. That's certainly an interesting question. In all honesty, if I had to guess, it would be that it was probably a little of both. Never the less, it's in the Constitution. Was brought up, passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ratified by the states. So power grab or not, it is what it is.


That part is very debatable. The 39th Congress passed a law that stated that former rebel states could ONLY get representation in Congress AFTER they ratified the 14th.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=460 see section 5

that is pretty much "ratifying under duress"



CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#101 : July 11, 2013, 01:51:23 PM

Don't know. That's certainly an interesting question. In all honesty, if I had to guess, it would be that it was probably a little of both. Never the less, it's in the Constitution. Was brought up, passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ratified by the states. So power grab or not, it is what it is.


That part is very debatable. The 39th Congress passed a law that stated that former rebel states could ONLY get representation in Congress AFTER they ratified the 14th.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=460 see section 5

that is pretty much "ratifying under duress"

Well, given that the south was pretty much a conquered territory, them's be's the breaks. When the southern states seceded, they ceased being a part of the United States of America, meaning that they justifiably should have had no say over Constitutional amendments passed by the states that defended the Union.


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#102 : July 11, 2013, 01:55:34 PM

"When the southern states seceded, they ceased being a part of the United States of America, "

Lincoln seemed to think otherwise.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#103 : July 11, 2013, 02:15:17 PM

Don't know. That's certainly an interesting question. In all honesty, if I had to guess, it would be that it was probably a little of both. Never the less, it's in the Constitution. Was brought up, passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ratified by the states. So power grab or not, it is what it is.


That part is very debatable. The 39th Congress passed a law that stated that former rebel states could ONLY get representation in Congress AFTER they ratified the 14th.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=460 see section 5

that is pretty much "ratifying under duress"

Well, given that the south was pretty much a conquered territory, them's be's the breaks. When the southern states seceded, they ceased being a part of the United States of America, meaning that they justifiably should have had no say over Constitutional amendments passed by the states that defended the Union.


It is still "debatable".

The States seceded because of "States rights vs Federal Powers" and the omission of "nor the United States" from the 14th clearly limits States powers WITHOUT limiting Federal powers.

As the 14th stands now, the States can't require a literacy test or even IDs to vote, but the Congress of the US could require a minimum of 30 on the wonderlic in order to vote for Federal Offices.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#104 : July 11, 2013, 02:46:36 PM

Don't know. That's certainly an interesting question. In all honesty, if I had to guess, it would be that it was probably a little of both. Never the less, it's in the Constitution. Was brought up, passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ratified by the states. So power grab or not, it is what it is.


That part is very debatable. The 39th Congress passed a law that stated that former rebel states could ONLY get representation in Congress AFTER they ratified the 14th.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=460 see section 5

that is pretty much "ratifying under duress"

Well, given that the south was pretty much a conquered territory, them's be's the breaks. When the southern states seceded, they ceased being a part of the United States of America, meaning that they justifiably should have had no say over Constitutional amendments passed by the states that defended the Union.


It is still "debatable".

The States seceded because of "States rights vs Federal Powers" and the omission of "nor the United States" from the 14th clearly limits States powers WITHOUT limiting Federal powers.

As the 14th stands now, the States can't require a literacy test or even IDs to vote, but the Congress of the US could require a minimum of 30 on the wonderlic in order to vote for Federal Offices.

I suspect that if the Federal Government were to ever impose such restrictions, the electorate would not be very pleased with it, and those individuals would be voted out, or pressured to change the law. That's the good thing about the two elected branches. The power structure shifts far more frequently than it does in the judicial branch, or even in a large number of state governments.

Page: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools