Started by Shooterman, February 11, 2012, 03:58:55 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on June 27, 2012, 08:31:14 AM"Based on" is incorrect, it would be more correct to say the were inspired by the Jim Crow laws of the old South.
Quote from: Shooterman on June 27, 2012, 08:55:56 AMWhich were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.
Quote"There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal ...."
Quote from: Shooterman on June 27, 2012, 05:08:57 AMFok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:55:40 AMThe notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional,
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 01:18:56 AMLet me stop you there, show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that secession is illegal.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 01:26:49 AM1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual. The Constitution seeks to create "a more perfect union", which certainly does not connote weakening it, especially given the vast increases in federal power and decreases in relative state power that the document entails.2. The Constitution decrees that federal law is supreme over state law; ergo, if a state votes to secede and Congress says no, the latter's word is law.
QuoteThe notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional,
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 02:15:11 AMYou just proved my point that secession is not unconstitutional.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 02:19:48 AMNope. The supremacy clause does not allow a state to actively renounce and nullify federal authority, which is precisely what secession entails. Try again. Ruling secession to be constitutional would be a death sentence for the nation, anyhow.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 03:23:30 AMYou can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 03:34:05 AMDoes the preceding "does not allow a state" clause escape your notice, or did you willfully ignore sections of my post to avoid actually arguing the point?
Quote from: Shooterman on July 02, 2012, 03:32:51 AMHe IS an admitted liberal. Were you expecting caviar?
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 04:38:30 AMSo which time were you flat ass wrong, when you claimed it wasn't Constitutional, or when you proved yourself wrong?
QuoteYou see, this is why liberalism/socialism is sooo despised and can't be trusted, you claim a certain set of rules to play by, then change said rules midstream to meet your goals.
QuoteConservatives play by the law, we all agree to follow the rules, but libs keep moving the goal posts until they claim a score, then reset the goal posts to favor them in the next play.
QuoteJust think if our social contract was set by the rules libs play by, like a red light really doesn't mean stop if you don't want it to, or drive on the left if it saves you a few cents in gas.
QuoteFace reality son, this is why the Dim party is going to become completely irrelevant in 2013, people want to go back to reality, where electricity isn't generated by Unicorn farts (HT to Giles) or the sun, but things that are proven to work.
QuoteIn a nutshell, were done with your version of reality in pursuit of a fantasy Utopian dream.