|
Title: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: Aske on May 28, 2010, 10:02:29 PM http://www.ktvu.com/politics/23709080/detail.html
Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: gleek on May 28, 2010, 11:15:19 PM Quote I am Native American and it does make me sick to know the "pilgrims" brought their unwanted criminals to our forefathers lands and took our country from us and then made their laws here. How hypocritical! Crooks are still running this country! Shame on you! The Earth belongs to Mother Nature and there should be no borders. As long as people live in peace, they should be welcomed wherever they want to live. To those politicians making these laws: did your forefathers have valid passports to enter this country? Your laws were good enough to make your citizenship valid to be American citizens to be voted into office. Why do you want to deprived others? You have got a lot of nerve! Shame on you! Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: stroh on May 28, 2010, 11:22:01 PM Quote As long as people live in peace, they should be welcomed wherever they want to live. Amen Brother. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: MFAWG on May 29, 2010, 01:39:51 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason.
Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: Aske on May 29, 2010, 07:47:50 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. I'm not going to say that I take that position or not, but when the 14th exists as it does, currently, then anyone running for office dumb enough to nominally support token legislation in direct violation of the constitution that is going to ultimately waste a bunch of SC time and $, etc should be humiliated, it not worse. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: gleek on May 29, 2010, 08:40:54 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. Already been done. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, in essence, was modified by the 19th Amendment. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: MFAWG on May 29, 2010, 08:41:37 AM I don't see where Paul says he supports unconstitutional legislation.
Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: MFAWG on May 29, 2010, 08:44:29 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. Already been done. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, in essence, was modified by the 19th Amendment. But this simple, declarative statement has not: Quote All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: gleek on May 29, 2010, 09:18:07 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. Already been done. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, in essence, was modified by the 19th Amendment. But this simple, declarative statement has not: Quote All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Well, obviously. My point is that it's impossible to take the position that the "14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason" since it's already too late. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: stroh on May 29, 2010, 09:28:55 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. I was speaking in a Global, historical, philosophical, ideology sense. Just saying I wish from the beginning that men had sought to co-exist instead of conquer. I wasn't speaking to the the article(which I never even clicked the link) or to the discussion of it. I just liked the line gleek posted. Sorry. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: MFAWG on May 29, 2010, 09:55:18 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. Already been done. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, in essence, was modified by the 19th Amendment. But this simple, declarative statement has not: Quote All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Well, obviously. My point is that it's impossible to take the position that the "14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason" since it's already too late. So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. I was speaking in a Global, historical, philosophical, ideology sense. Just saying I wish from the beginning that men had sought to co-exist instead of conquer. I wasn't speaking to the the article(which I never even clicked the link) or to the discussion of it. I just liked the line gleek posted. Sorry. I think we're going to have to revisit the issue of birthright citizenship and a couple of other non-immigration related issues in the US Constitution before too much longer. I believe the 40 plus years since the passage of any meaningful revisions is the longest in US history, and certainly the longest since the turn of the 20th century. Title: Re: [Politics/Atlas derped] Randtard should run in Az too Post by: gleek on May 29, 2010, 10:26:57 AM So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. Already been done. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, in essence, was modified by the 19th Amendment. But this simple, declarative statement has not: Quote All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Well, obviously. My point is that it's impossible to take the position that the "14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason" since it's already too late. So you guys take the position that the 14th Amendment shouldn't ever be changed for any reason. I was speaking in a Global, historical, philosophical, ideology sense. Just saying I wish from the beginning that men had sought to co-exist instead of conquer. I wasn't speaking to the the article(which I never even clicked the link) or to the discussion of it. I just liked the line gleek posted. Sorry. I think we're going to have to revisit the issue of birthright citizenship and a couple of other non-immigration related issues in the US Constitution before too much longer. I believe the 40 plus years since the passage of any meaningful revisions is the longest in US history, and certainly the longest since the turn of the 20th century. There are a few in the original 10 bills of rights that I think could stand some revisions before the 14th comes up in the queue. |