This guy needs to get a job in a movie theater, because he is an extremely good ‘projectionist’...
Curious, certainly have hit a nerve with them. Perhaps we should explain a few positions on a few issues:
“One cannot—or more properly, you should not be able to—be against birthright citizenship, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and still claim you support said Constitution.”
Sure you can, the people who wrote the 14th amendment did not support the idea of citizenship by location of birth rather than parentage of birth either.
That is just something people after the fact presumed, Birthright however was suppose to refer to that which you get from your parents not your location.
Example: John McCain was born an American becase both his parents were Americans, but John McCain was not born in any American State. His Birthright is his American heritage.
Insolently Also You can support the Constitutions while also supporting the repeal of certain questionable amendments. IE: 14, and 17, just as there was a very good Constitution before those amendments broke certain critical checks and balances in it.
“Similarly, you cannot aim to cut down voter access and still claim to support the Fifteenth Amendment.”
I’m afraid I’m at a loss for how the 15th amendment apply to not insuring people voting in a state are actually Citizens of the State voting only once. It would seem to me that the 15th amendment requires such careful registration & verification to prevent voter-fraud which DOES undermine everyone’s voting rights.
“Further, you cannot even claim to support democracy if you want to end the direct election of United States Senators, enabled by the Seventeenth Amendment.”
Well hes got me here, I do not support Democracy, and don’t claim to support democracy. As our founders pointed our Democracy wast and murder themselves, becoming one of the most oppressive systems of government possible.
I like our founders strongly appose Democracy and instead support and insist upon Constitutional republicanism. Constitutional Republicanism for those that don’t know history is like democracy except that elected leaders can only act in a small and defined set of ways enumerated in a Constitution.
For example: In a democracy a leader can practically do anything from making any sort of law to going after any sort of group.
In a Republic A leader can only only act upon foreign objects and work with tools such as military for defending against foreign objects. He cannot utilize them in an official capacity inside our borders, nor can he tell them to do anything contrary to the dictates of law made by congress.
In this and many other ways A republican leader is limited to leading only in a defined area for defined proposes.
While all other areas such as the Domestic sphere, the economic sphere, the religious sphere, the health sphere, the recreational sphere, are all either left to the people or allocated to someone other elected official and/or Government.
In a democracy Governments & their leaders can in practice do whatever they want, rule in any sphere they want without meaningful limits.
The Left can only think in top-down categories, because they're totalitarian, they think everyone else is too. This is like Bloomberg putting up $50 milliion to take on the NRA. The NRA doesn't direct anyone. Individuals have come to the conclusion on the importance of firearms ownership and freedom. NRA or no NRA, that ain't gonna change.
But who am I? I'm obviously just another astroturf lacky of the Big Corporations. Moronic childishness.