Memo To Julia Craven :
Click the Pic
BTW! Slut! Slavery Is Not in the Constitution!
Memo To Julia Craven :
Click the Pic
BTW! Slut! Slavery Is Not in the Constitution!
Shrillary, in her comments on the SCOTUS, did not even frickin’ mention the constitution, as far as I recall. She talked as though the SC is about nothing but taking a poll of “progressive” opinions. SHe needs to be knocked down hard on this.
Also, the way Chris Wallace framed the question was outrageously biased, he asked where should the SC “Take the country” as though it is up to the SC to decide how to shape and determine the entire future of the country (of course that is how libtards view the matter).
Trump missed a big opportunity to point out the biases of the MSM and Democrats to making the SC the supreme dictators of the land, which was certainly never what the constitution described (their role is very limited in the constitution). He did answer well on the kind of justices he will appoint, but I think his campaign needs to hit more on the broader constitutional themes, too.
But then, of course, the MSM and libtards try to use the judiciary to dictate laws, control all outcomes and behaviors, rule as though the other 2 branches of govt do not matter.
Meet the people running your country.
I warned you not to vote for them, but you did anyway.
So have a nice day. :)
This snowflake fascist-in-training never heard of amendments.
This article is *the* definition of propaganda. It has *some* basis in “fact”, but they eliminate subsequent facts to promote a narrative.
These people are beyond sickening. The freak probably doesn’t realize how their brain is completely scrubbed and programmed with Liberalism v1.0.
The author is attempting to imply that Trump wants to return the country to the same social conditions as existed in 1787. That is a lie.
Huffington Post is a rag filled with willful ignorance.
"Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton took a more measured approach.Perhaps that genius mind of the Author of America's Declaration of Independence might provide an expanded and better bit of advice on the role of the Supreme Court than the provincial views expressed by the Alinsky-trained and "Progressive" mind of Clinton:“'The Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful ― on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy,” she said. “For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United.'" - Clinton, Huffington Post
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81
3. Only white people were considered to be people.
Well, which is it, Mizz Craven? Oh, that's right, both of those statements were lies. LOL
What percentage of a person do liberals consider unborn human beings to be? Zero%.
Apparently the author is not familiar with the Amendments to the Constitution.
Wasn’t Julia a faceless 0bamadontcare sprite?
...since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.
The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.
An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.
I wonder if Julia Craven has read the U.S. Constitution.
I wonder if Julia Craven identifies herself by the way she has sex.
I wonder why the Huffpo can’t find good writers.
I wonder why...
5.56mm
I think you are failing to understand the constitution and the way it was designed in 1781 and redesigned in convention in 1787, from the original articled of confederation. The original document was set up for the individual states to basically government themselves. It wasn’t until 1787 that the federal government changed the ruling capacity giving the federal government more powers.
In the 1787 version, they created article V. which was placed in to create change capacity making amendments available. The founders were aware there was going to be need for changes.
You talked about the determination of making slaves 2/3 of a person. They were actually made that because at that time, property was a major factor of vote counting and the southerners were calling slaves property and using them to pass legislation in the government. The northerners were trying to keep it balanced, so as slavery was still legal at that time, they compromised.
You also mentioned the aspect of LGBT marriage. Even though many argue aqainst it, religion was a major part of the determination as to the definition of marriage which was man and woman using over 30 versus in the Bible.. It took over 200 years to change the thinking. And it was done for the wrong reason. But, it was done.
We’ve come a long way. But don’t automatically say the founders were wrong in what they did as I think they created a living document that, with the ability to change, is working and will outlive anything else that has been dreamed up.
And Trump’s aware of that as with the amendments already in place, he knows what his limitations are. And you can be sure he has used them a few times during his business career. I have too. That’s what they are there for.
So don’t read too much into what people say. They are just as limited as you are.
red
On the other hand, the states have never amended Constitution to expressly protect either politically correct abortion or LGBT “rights."
And speaking of the amendable Constitution, regarding Hillary’s so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion, in the debate Hillary necessarily had to indicate that this fictitious constitutional right came from the state sovereignty-ignoring justices who decided Roe v. Wade, not from the Constitution. Again, this is because the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect abortion or LGBT issues as rights like the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are.
In fact, the Roe v. Wade justices stole state powers to wrongly establish from the bench the so-called right to have an abortion along with legalizing gay “marriage.”
The bottom line is that because abortion is not a constitutionally enumerated right, Constitution-ignoring Democrats like Hillary must fight tooth-and-nail to keep a pro-abortion activist justice majority on the Court to keep the phony constitutional right to have an abortion alive, corrupt federal lawmakers exploiting low-information women voters with this issue to win their votes.
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by the unconstitutional legalization of abortion and gay “marriage.”
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-gay, pro-LGBT agenda activist justices.
Abortionist murderers can’t be taken seriously.
Intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds
HuffandPuff, if you hate the Constitution move to North Korea, see if you can write that crap there...
But as the centuries have passed, we have come closer to those ideals. It is inconceivable that we could regard blacks as chattel simply because of their pigmentation. It is absurd that we could deny our sisters and wives the right to vote. So we reflected on the virtues extolled by the Constitution -- we weighed ourselves on its scale and found ourselves wanting. And we corrected those errors.
Pretending fags and dykes can "marry" is a moral decision, not a legal or ideological one. Is equates the perverse deviant relationship between two persons of the same sex to the procreative relationship between opposites. Not only does it fly in the face of accepted morality, it defies nature and logic as well.
Arguing that the Constitution guarantees equality for all people is a lie. People are not equal. They do not -- and CAN not -- accomplish the same things. All the Constitution does (besides establishing a framework for government that seems to be largely ignored these days) is guarantee everyone the SAME rights to reach whatever potential they choose. It does not guarantee equality of outcome.
And however brilliant people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer think they are, they are no brighter than the men who forged the Constitution to begin with. There is nothing they can do to "improve" on it. We don't need Constitution 2.0.
Hey, Julia, it’s not cool to lie.
The writer, Julia Craven, is amazingly well named.