|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43989 Posts
On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed.
Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional, even if they write "this could theoretically apply to whites" as an addendum while assuring everyone out loud that it definitely won't.
|
|
|
On May 10 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed. Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional.
Apparently fighting a war on the subject is insufficient grounds to conclude there's more forces at work here than constitutional law? Or were judges the way out of the civil war? And how to do you expect slaveholding states to sign on to a constitution in the first place? I mean Kwark, colonial governor has a certain historical perspective I suppose.
|
|
|
United States43989 Posts
On May 10 2017 08:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:
If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to[quote] I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed. Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional. Apparently fighting a war on the subject is insufficient grounds to conclude there's more forces at work here than constitutional law? Or were judges the way out of the civil war? And how to do you expect slaveholding states to sign on to a constitution in the first place? I mean Kwark, colonial governor has a certain historical perspective I suppose.
Your stance on this is the same as the stance of the Confederate south on slavery. You argued that the access of African Americans to the ballot is purely a state's rights issue and that only the state that has enshrined white supremacy into its state constitution has the power to end it. You were wrong in 1861 and you're wrong now.
|
United States43989 Posts
Incidentally to bring this back to Sessions, he defended the 1901 law on the grounds thatEach State has different standards based on their moral evaluation
neatly echoing the authors who proclaimed that the negro was morally unfit to vote. He also couched his defence in terms of states rights and said that a nationwide law would be disrespectful to the state of Alabama, presumably because it would imply that Alabama might have some kind of racism problem.
|
On May 10 2017 08:40 KwarK wrote:Incidentally to bring this back to Sessions, he defended the 1901 law on the grounds that neatly echoing the authors who proclaimed that the negro was morally unfit to vote.
It's very obviously the reason Sessions is so anti-weed.
|
@kwark
does it matter whether the legislator with unconstitutional intent is compent or incompetent? imagine a scenario where a legislator thought his law would deprive blacks the right to vote but it in fact failed to do that. would it be unconstitutional?
i think the Alabama case is one where the legislator's comments are highly suggestive that the application of the law is unconstitutionally discriminatory, despite it's prima facie validity (in the legal sense that any challenge must provide extrastatuory evidence). a law that would be prima facie unconstitutional would be one that said "blacks can't vote." no evidence needed.
|
On May 10 2017 08:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 08:33 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past:
[quote] The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed. Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional. Apparently fighting a war on the subject is insufficient grounds to conclude there's more forces at work here than constitutional law? Or were judges the way out of the civil war? And how to do you expect slaveholding states to sign on to a constitution in the first place? I mean Kwark, colonial governor has a certain historical perspective I suppose. Your stance on this is the same as the stance of the Confederate south on slavery. You argued that the access of African Americans to the ballot is purely a state's rights issue and that only the state that has enshrined white supremacy into its state constitution has the power to end it. You were wrong in 1861 and you're wrong now.
You lump absurdity upon absurdity. I have never talked about state right's issues. Nor did I hear from you just one constitutional violation contrary to the 14th amendment's permissive attitude towards denying felons the right to vote. You're asserting irrationally white supremacist notions when a whole bloody war was fought on the unresolved conflict no judge could solve or constitution correct. We have the constitutional amendment process for precisely the reasons you brought up. And it's entirely disingenuous to play fast and loose with constitutional theory to declare someone a white supremacist.
|
The stated rationale is invented and phony.
|
United States43989 Posts
On May 10 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 08:36 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:33 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm confused by your response.
[quote]
The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed. Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional. Apparently fighting a war on the subject is insufficient grounds to conclude there's more forces at work here than constitutional law? Or were judges the way out of the civil war? And how to do you expect slaveholding states to sign on to a constitution in the first place? I mean Kwark, colonial governor has a certain historical perspective I suppose. Your stance on this is the same as the stance of the Confederate south on slavery. You argued that the access of African Americans to the ballot is purely a state's rights issue and that only the state that has enshrined white supremacy into its state constitution has the power to end it. You were wrong in 1861 and you're wrong now. You lump absurdity upon absurdity. I have never talked about state right's issues. Nor did I hear from you just one constitutional violation contrary to the 14th amendment's permissive attitude towards denying felons the right to vote. You're asserting irrationally white supremacist notions when a whole bloody war was fought on the unresolved conflict no judge could solve or constitution correct. We have the constitutional amendment process for precisely the reasons you brought up. And it's entirely disingenuous to play fast and loose with constitutional theory to declare someone a white supremacist.
Did you not say it was the responsibility of the people of the state with the white supremacist constitution to amend it themselves? Funny how that works out.
|
|
|
They fired him while he was on stage addressing other FBI members. The news flashed behind him while he was on stage.
Authors of political thrillers are all yelling "I could never get away with this shit! People would say it wasn't believable!!!"
Did everyone in the White House cut class when they covered the 1970s in US history?
|
On May 10 2017 08:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 08:36 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:33 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed. Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional. Apparently fighting a war on the subject is insufficient grounds to conclude there's more forces at work here than constitutional law? Or were judges the way out of the civil war? And how to do you expect slaveholding states to sign on to a constitution in the first place? I mean Kwark, colonial governor has a certain historical perspective I suppose. Your stance on this is the same as the stance of the Confederate south on slavery. You argued that the access of African Americans to the ballot is purely a state's rights issue and that only the state that has enshrined white supremacy into its state constitution has the power to end it. You were wrong in 1861 and you're wrong now. You lump absurdity upon absurdity. I have never talked about state right's issues. Nor did I hear from you just one constitutional violation contrary to the 14th amendment's permissive attitude towards denying felons the right to vote. You're asserting irrationally white supremacist notions when a whole bloody war was fought on the unresolved conflict no judge could solve or constitution correct. We have the constitutional amendment process for precisely the reasons you brought up. And it's entirely disingenuous to play fast and loose with constitutional theory to declare someone a white supremacist. Did you not say it was the responsibility of the people of the state with the white supremacist constitution to amend it themselves? Funny how that works out.
If you care about constitutionality, which it's becoming clear that you don't, you don't inflict your thoughts on the morality of the results with conflicts of the legal nature. Of course prior civil war and reconstruction laws were absolutely horrifying. You bring it up like we didn't lose millions of lives precisely over things a judge couldn't declare unconstitutional and solve everything. So if we're done with this pin the tail on the racist exercise in futility, I suggest you drop it or PM me.
|
The Nixon library is lit tonight.
|
The Nixon LARPer on twitter that's actually a playwright in New Jersey is going to be too.
|
Even Charles Krauthammer isn't buying the administrations given reason to fire him summarily with no warning in the middle of may because of something that happened in July is almost inexplicable.
Also senate intel chair (GOP senator)
|
Where's rambo mccain when you need him
|
On May 10 2017 09:35 biology]major wrote:
Where's rambo mccain when you need him
Already saying we need to double down on the Russian investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
