https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/am...o-second-amendment-jurist/#axzz6Z4d8pGin“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.
Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislature imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service,
not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.”
She also saw nothing wrong with the lock down....f her.
She also saw nothing wrong with the lock down....f her.
So, that disqualifies her in your eyes?
Was the lockdown tried at the supreme court? Did not know that.
Was the lockdown tried at the supreme court? Did not know that.
Is she on the supreme court? Did not know that.....
Is she better than ANYONE who the Ds would nominate?
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
bummer there must be a perfect nominee out there somewhere
There are no perfect people and President Trump has proven that.
I support him unconditionally and Amy Coney Barrett as well.
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
How is that a bad thing?
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.
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
How is that a bad thing?
Values foreigners over her own people. Not a good sign.
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
How is that a bad thing?
Values foreigners over her own people. Not a good sign.
oh no gawd no anything but that
So, you'd be happier with a rampant bigot racist homophobe?
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.
She also saw nothing wrong with the lock down....f her.
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.
She also saw nothing wrong with the lock down....f her.
So, that disqualifies her in your eyes?
Yes, critical thinking is the most important aspect for a Supreme Court nominee, and she has none.
Personally I don't understand why it absolutely has to be a female, but if it does how is she any better than Rushing or Bade? From what I've read either of those two would be a better choice IMO.
Personally I don't understand why it absolutely has to be a female, but if it does how is she any better than Rushing or Bade? From what I've read either of those two would be a better choice IMO.
Rushing would have been my choice too. Supposedly her age (38) was considered to young and would have been seen as a liability at confirmation.
has to be a female because of the bullshit gender politics.
As for the other female judges, they may have more baggage. Not that it matters, left im sure, is typing up an anonymous letter right now to extend/delay the hearings.
So, how many of you have written to Trump with your character assessments of the possible nominees?
Personally I don't understand why it absolutely has to be a female, but if it does how is she any better than Rushing or Bade? From what I've read either of those two would be a better choice IMO.
I know they are both Trump appointments, but can you tell us something about them in terms of their records?
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.
AKwolverine: YOU are EXACTLY correct in your questioning for the constant flood/flurry of naysyers on this site!
Would these perpetually negative naysayers prefer to have the anti-American, pro-socialist, power-mad, bull dagger, greedy criminal now known as "the hildabeast" nominating SCOTUS Judges?
I would be boo-koo happy with Ms.Barrett serving on the Supreme Court of the United States - 1,000 times more happy with her than with any hildabeast nominee/judge.
Sheesh.
GO TRUMP
MAGA (despite the numerous naysayers and contraries on this sites constant sniping, belly-aching and back-stabbing!)
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
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!!
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.
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.
Personally I don't understand why it absolutely has to be a female, but if it does how is she any better than Rushing or Bade? From what I've read either of those two would be a better choice IMO.
I know they are both Trump appointments, but can you tell us something about them in terms of their records?
My main disagreement with Barrett is that I think she'll be weak on immigration. There is the obvious fact she adopted the 2 Haitian kids and also Catholics have been pretty big in importing refugees into the country.
Why is this bad? Because IMO almost unlimited immigration is going to be the downfall of the US. Very few (going by voter demographics) of those people we import value anything that I do. If it was up to me I'd stop all immigration for a minimum of 50 or so years.
In the long run it doesn't matter what I think since no one with my way of thinking will ever get close to political power.
Personally I don't understand why it absolutely has to be a female, but if it does how is she any better than Rushing or Bade? From what I've read either of those two would be a better choice IMO.
I know they are both Trump appointments, but can you tell us something about them in terms of their records?
My main disagreement with Barrett is that I think she'll be weak on immigration. There is the obvious fact she adopted the 2 Haitian kids and also Catholics have been pretty big in importing refugees into the country.
Why is this bad? Because IMO almost unlimited immigration is going to be the downfall of the US. Very few (going by voter demographics) of those people we import value anything that I do. If it was up to me I'd stop all immigration for a minimum of 50 or so years.
In the long run it doesn't matter what I think since no one with my way of thinking will ever get close to political power.
Oh, we're in agreement on those concerns. I was asking about the two choices you stated you'd prefer, Rushing and Bade.
TRH
They are probably at least as solid on the 2nd and don't have the immigration red flags. I haven't read that much about any of the mentioned candidates. I'm not voting on them so my interest is minimal.
I doubt if any of them would be my first choice, but I'm not POTUS and I'm not making the decision. If I was deciding who to nominate I'd be doing a ton of reading and in person meetings if at all possible.
- - - - - - - 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.
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?
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.
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.
Not.
Governmental regulations have to serve a legitimate .gov interest, to be Constitutional.
Lockin up healthy people has never been legitimate, and never been held Constitutional.
And, it wasn't Constitutional in this case, either.
She voted in favor of big government, because it *was* the government.
The left's gonna love her, if she gets in.
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 founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
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 founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
Well aware.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
What if she adopted two white kids from eastern Europe? Good sign???
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."
Sheesh, if only we could have Ginsberg back.
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 founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
Well aware.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
The DOI, not the Constitution, but it was the pursuit of happiness that done us in.
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.
So, you'd be happier with a rampant bigot racist homophobe?
I would be very happy with that. so you are saying you want another ruthless ginsberg
Lots of you guys masquerading as guys here because only women are supposed to piss and moan. I she’s good enough for Trump I will be happy to have my senator back her. Ed k
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?
Lots of you guys masquerading as guys here because only women are supposed to piss and moan. I she’s good enough for Trump I will be happy to have my senator back her. Ed k
one day I hope to grow up and be as tough as you are
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?
Clearly you’re looking to take a contrary view.
I think his quote speaks for itself
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 founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
Well aware.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
You seem to agree with what our founders wanted. In this day and age of judges blatantly making up horse sh1t to read into the constitution. A judge actually reading something into the constitution that anyone with a basic understanding of American history and our founding can agree was in fact our founders intent and on something as critically important as immigration is the least of my worries.
Clearly you’re looking to take a contrary view.
I think his quote speaks for itself
Plenty of laws no longer on the books which were never found to be “unconstitutional.” You, as well as he, know that.
The question I posed remains.
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 founders were fairly clear in there belief that America should be a primarily Caucasian nation.
Well aware.
What does the constitution say on the matter?
You seem to agree with what our founders wanted. In this day and age of judges blatantly making up horse sh1t to read into the constitution. A judge actually reading something into the constitution that anyone with a basic understanding of American history and our founding can agree was in fact our founders intent and on something as critically important as immigration is the least of my worries.
since when does the constitution matter anyway?
this will never happen but what should be brought up is taking away 80% of the power of the SC and all federal judges. they are making law without being elected and are there for life. no way was this country set up for them to have so much power. that is how the communists got their way for 50 years no matter how many fake right wing judges there were
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.
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.
you are 100% right . the right has been losing on every major issue for 50 years no matter who was on the SC. once they get there they all go deep state and the slow genocide of whites marches on unimpeded. barrett will betray the right
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.
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?
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
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.
this country was founded by white supremacists for white people .they annihilated any non whites they found. for 100 years only white men who owned property could vote. it is amazing how suicidal whites are. I expect it on the left but more then half the right whites cant wait until they are a minority. in the history of the would this has never happened
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.)
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 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
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.
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!
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.“
i hope she knocks out r vs w
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.
How is she on the National issue? Immigration, etc.? I hear she adopted two hatians. Not a good sign.
For adopting legally?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- - - - - - - 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.
- - - - - - - 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said, and spot on.
Thrilled to get 90+% of what I want vs. 95% of what I don't.
Thrilled to get 90+% of what I want vs. 95% of what I don't.
well stated