|
|
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 1,294
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 1,294 |
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional. I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different. The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation - law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history. Did our founders pass out voting rights to Mexicans, Native Americans, or Africans? Heck our founders were more interested in shooting the native Americans than much else. It doesn’t take a PHD in American history to understand whom the framers of the constitution felt best qualified to run this republic or whom the republic was for. No matter what you I or anyone else thinks. Anyone trying to spin it that the founders of this country wanted an open borders hodgepodge of people from all faiths, cultures, or races to have a say in running this country or that they wanted anything other than a majority white population either has a very poor understanding of history or an agenda. the founders were white supremacists. for decades only white male property owners were allowed to vote. you can see that this is supposed to be a right leaning site and half the guys here side with the left on the most important issue...keeping US white. there is no hope for this country. we will be brazil first then south afreaka
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,666
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,666 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,343
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,343 |
Carpe' Scrotum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,895
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,895 |
I don't need perfect, I just looking for better.
Amy's better than Ruth, and best I can tell the best of the 5 women who made the finals.
With 4 1/2 conservatives on the court, we have enough wiggle room for her imperfections, and she's by far the best looking of the 5, and will still look good 40 years from now.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,063
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,063 |
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional. I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different. The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation - law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history. Did our founders pass out voting rights to Mexicans, Native Americans, or Africans? Heck our founders were more interested in shooting the native Americans than much else. It doesn’t take a PHD in American history to understand whom the framers of the constitution felt best qualified to run this republic or whom the republic was for. No matter what you I or anyone else thinks. Anyone trying to spin it that the founders of this country wanted an open borders hodgepodge of people from all faiths, cultures, or races to have a say in running this country or that they wanted anything other than a majority white population either has a very poor understanding of history or an agenda. the founders were white supremacists. for decades only white male property owners were allowed to vote. you can see that this is supposed to be a right leaning site and half the guys here side with the left on the most important issue...keeping US white. there is no hope for this country. we will be brazil first then south afreaka We definitely have a bleeder here guys!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 17,828
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 17,828 |
From Steve’s link - “Judge Barrett did what a judge should do: She applied the law in accordance with precedent, addressing all of the issues that were raised (factual and legal) where the law was not clear. As importantly, she did not leave any unresolved issues for subsequent review that could have expanded what is, and should be, an area of limited judicial review. And, at least in the minds of the Seventh Circuit, she got the decision right, as a majority of the active judges in the circuit subsequently denied rehearing en banc. Judge Barrett may or may not become the ninth justice on the Supreme Court. When it comes to immigration, however, she applies the law. And that is really all that I can ask.“
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,666
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 18,666 |
i hope she knocks out r vs w
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,895
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,895 |
i hope she knocks out r vs w Even with her, there isn't the votes for that. And if you really take some time to consider the full ull implications, you really won't like the effects.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,143
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,143 |
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign. For adopting legally?
Fight fire, save lives, laugh in the face of danger.
Stupid always finds a way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,439
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,439 |
i hope she knocks out r vs w Even with her, there isn't the votes for that. And if you really take some time to consider the full ull implications, you really won't like the effects. If the supremes ever rule correctly on RvW, freedom will result. And Conservatives *will* like the result, although not the effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,143
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,143 |
So, you'd be happier with a rampant bigot racist homophobe? You try to make that sound like it's a bad thing. Maybe you should hang out at a riot and show them your SJW card, maybe they won't brain you. Maybe you should too and see how many of the master race make up the protesters. Unless you believe that white protesters are preferred over colored peoples.
Last edited by smarquez; 09/25/20.
Fight fire, save lives, laugh in the face of danger.
Stupid always finds a way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,143
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,143 |
She upheld a bolognavirus lockdown in IL.
Anybody too stupid ta see through the bolo-19 bullshit is too stupid ta be on the SC. Her thoughts on the virus have nothing to do with the decision. The decision is on the governments ability to address a health threat. That ability is well founded in prior SC decisions going all the way back to the late 1700's. The same way they can put someone in an asylum for TB or force a small pox vaccination. Granted, the Covid is overblown. But this decision effects the future when it could be very real. You need to take your common sense and facts and just move right along.
Fight fire, save lives, laugh in the face of danger.
Stupid always finds a way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,492
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,492 |
The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional. I will take your word for this, but this in and of itself does not state or clarify "intent" on the part of the Founders for white immigration only.. The fact that it never was declared unconstitutional may merely be due to the fact that it was not challenged and adjudicated in that regard. The fact that it stood for a long time does not seem to bear on this discussion. Is it not the case that many longstanding laws eventually were taken off the books or supplanted by laws that stated something different. The Constitution provides latitude for application of wisdom and good judgment in its implementation - law regarding women's right to vote and the civil rights legislation are examples of new rules that supplanted those which stood for a long time or whose applications later were determined to be unwise, unfair, etc. I absolutely make no case regarding any preferred skin color of immigrants, but am concerned about misconstrued, intents, laws and history. The Constitution provides for that through the ratification of amendments through due Constitutional process.Legislated law doesn't amend the Constitution. Neither does whatever a judge "rules" when trying to legislate from the bench. We have seen way too much of both. The Constitution really doesn't grant powers. It limits the powers of federal gov't. And passes the powers not named to the states.(That's the way it SHOULD be anyway. It's the way it was written.) I said nothing about the Constitution except that it provides latitude - and it does that through absence of specificity in some areas - but please keep in mind that my post directly addressed that person's comments about legislation in Congress.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,423
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,423 |
Tyrone has shown his colors. Or rather, color, since he's a monochrome. And he's also wrong.
Having a bigot racist on the SC bench is horrific, EITHER WAY. KKK or BLM doesn't matter. What we so desperately need is not another agenda-driven zealot but a Constitutionalist who examines each issue before her compared to the intent of the Founding Fathers and their written words. That's why the Supreme Court was created, and exactly the way it must be maintained. Ah, another Beautiful Loser. You're sort is the reason conservatism has never conserved anything.
Regards,
deadlift_dude
“The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
----Fred Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,423
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,423 |
- - - - - - - What we so desperately need is not another agenda-driven zealot but a Constitutionalist who examines each issue before her compared to the intent of the Founding Fathers and their written words. That's why the Supreme Court was created, and exactly the way it must be maintained. This is the case - what we need - the guidance of our democratic republic is weakened, for all citizens, when narrow thinking ideologues are placed in the judiciary. The accurate and focused application of the principles stated in our Constitution is not served by limited minds and tight biases. There seems to be some strange thinking in this thread - as if our legal decrees and government should be tailored to MY wants and biases - even at the same time I am complaining based on my perception that others, with whom do not agree, are getting things THEIR way - and where does that kind of thinking and behavior lead an organization? And, our government IS an organization, whether or not we may think so. Somewhere in all of this humanly fuss we seem to have buried the concept of principle. Fair play is only possible(1) among white folks. All the other folks are playing for keeps. Time white folks did, too. And speaking as a recovering yankee, we lost our republic some time during the civil war. (1) White & white normative supremacy culture: Necessary but insufficient condition for things like fair play, rule of law, and other nice things.
Regards,
deadlift_dude
“The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
----Fred Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,492
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,492 |
- - - - - - - What we so desperately need is not another agenda-driven zealot but a Constitutionalist who examines each issue before her compared to the intent of the Founding Fathers and their written words. That's why the Supreme Court was created, and exactly the way it must be maintained. This is the case - what we need - the guidance of our democratic republic is weakened, for all citizens, when narrow thinking ideologues are placed in the judiciary. The accurate and focused application of the principles stated in our Constitution is not served by limited minds and tight biases. There seems to be some strange thinking in this thread - as if our legal decrees and government should be tailored to MY wants and biases - even at the same time I am complaining based on my perception that others, with whom do not agree, are getting things THEIR way - and where does that kind of thinking and behavior lead an organization? And, our government IS an organization, whether or not we may think so. Somewhere in all of this humanly fuss we seem to have buried the concept of principle. Fair play is only possible(1) among white folks. All the other folks are playing for keeps. Time white folks did, too. And speaking as a recovering yankee, we lost our republic some time during the civil war.(1) White & white normative supremacy culture: Necessary but insufficient condition for things like fair play, rule of law, and other nice things. Upon first reading , it appears that I may not agree with everything you stated here. As in the more broad Constitutional context set for our government, there is plenty of room for differing beliefs among citizens. It is important to understand those differences. Let me try - kindly answer. What is the factual basis for your opening statement regarding the "only possible" means for your term "fair play", and the difference between fair play and playing "for keeps"? What is your definition of "yankee" and what is a "recovering yankee"? At what specific point did we lose our republic?
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449 |
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign. That's what concerns me about her, too. Not likely she places any value in the US remaining majority White. What does the constitution say on the matter? The very first immigration law passed by Congress in the US, and passed under the US Constitution, specified that candidates for citizenship must be Whites of good character, so it's clearly not unconstitutional. That law stood for a very long time, and was never found unconstitutional. And? You seemed to suggest such a policy would be somehow inconsistent with the Constitution. Apparently, no one thought so during the lives of its Framers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449 |
Man, some guys can't see the forest because of the trees, lol.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Or, from Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." Loser thinking like this is exactly how we've gotten to where we are today. I'll take the perfect diamond and that ain't Amy. Not even close. So, in your perfect world, who would be your nominee? ann coutler She'd be preferable to any of the women on his list right now, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,850
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,850 |
Hate to say it but the day of the White European Race being in the majority in the USA is and has come to a close! The Muslims are outscrewing us 8 to 1 and the Bros and Ho be doing about the same....if not more and that ain't even considering what the river swimmers are doing!! As a white male....we is now in da minority!! That's due to policy. Policy, incidentally, set by white men. No, a reality created by White women. Actually a reality created by educated, free women everywhere around the World: Opting out of motherhood.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,124
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,124 |
We don’t have a shrinking population problem (so what if our population remained stable or even shrunk slightly) what we have is a greedy short sited politician problem that wants cheap labor and to artificially prop up housing values and a tax base by opening up our borders. All on the supposed Republican side of things. On the left you have a demand for open boarders out of pure evil, jealousy and a hatred for what this country was founded on.
Last edited by TheLastLemming76; 09/26/20.
|
|
|
|
|
132 members (257wthbylover, 300_savage, 5sdad, 2ndwind, aaronward9, 18 invisible),
1,760
guests, and
965
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,599
Posts18,454,511
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/m0zk1a7.jpg)
