Hillary wants to abolish the Electoral College

[Blake]

How about you take the high road for once in your life and abstain from insults altogether?

K, hypocrite

[koriwhat]

K, hypocrite

[Blake]

K, drug user

[koriwhat]

K, drug user

what's your vice blake, watching your ex take it up the pooper while you cuddle the corner of the room and cry? i can't relate but a little bit of weed will help you get over it.

[Blake]

K, drug user

[Spurtacular]

Well, the framers were very careful on what rights they granted, especially for minorities. Don't forget that's who the Cons ution largely protects. It's likely that giving voting rights to slaves would've been considered way too edgy at the time. Or maybe it just wasn't even considered.

I don't know about that whole 'more perfect union citizenship' thing, it's your opinion, and certainly valid.

The Cons ution wanted to create equity for all in as much as possible; I'd stop short of saying it was "especially for minorities" in today's terms.

As far as slavery goes, the framers knew that it was a problem that would hit a head within five generations / was a problem that could explode in any given generation; that's why some such as T-Jeff wanted a rider to end slavery within two decades.

[ElNono]

The Cons ution wanted to create equity for all in as much as possible; I'd stop short of saying it was "especially for minorities" in today's terms.

As far as slavery goes, the framers knew that it was a problem that would hit a head within five generations / was a problem that could explode in any given generation; that's why some such as T-Jeff wanted a rider to end slavery within two decades.

The Cons ution inherently protects from the mob or majority. ie: even if the vast majority of people find KKK speech offensive and reprehensible, the cons ution protects it. If you're in the majority, you're much less likely to need such protection. Works the same with pretty much every other right. Even if a State like New York or California wants to outright ban weapons, and that's the view of the majority, the Cons ution protects the minority.

There's obviously a formal process that the majority can use to change the rights granted by the Cons ution, but it has a high bar and a long consensus process, as it should.

Talking about consensus, that's what the framers had to deal with when it came to voting. States clearly didn't want to allow slaves or women to vote, and having a Cons ution in place was much more important than delaying it for those reasons.

They punted, and that makes sense. There was a mechanism to correct that wrong, and over time, it did. But the lingering issue is that there's no Cons utional right to vote, there's some voting discrimination protections that were enshrined later on.

Circling back to the starting argument, it shouldn't be shocking that a State would like to grant non-national citizens the right to vote. We can discuss that on the merits, but barring a Federal law outlawing it, it would be perfectly within their realm.

[Spurtacular]

The Cons ution inherently protects from the mob or majority. ie: even if the vast majority of people find KKK speech offensive and reprehensible, the cons ution protects it. If you're in the majority, you're much less likely to need such protection. Works the same with pretty much every other right. Even if a State like New York or California wants to outright ban weapons, and that's the view of the majority, the Cons ution protects the minority.

There's obviously a formal process that the majority can use to change the rights granted by the Cons ution, but it has a high bar and a long consensus process, as it should.

Talking about consensus, that's what the framers had to deal with when it came to voting. States clearly didn't want to allow slaves or women to vote, and having a Cons ution in place was much more important than delaying it for those reasons.

They punted, and that makes sense. There was a mechanism to correct that wrong, and over time, it did. But the lingering issue is that there's no Cons utional right to vote, there's some voting discrimination protections that were enshrined later on.

Circling back to the starting argument, it shouldn't be shocking that a State would like to grant non-national citizens the right to vote. We can discuss that on the merits, but barring a Federal law outlawing it, it would be perfectly within their realm.

The Cons ution never granted (governmental/citizen-level) rights to non citizens. A lot of liberals love to believe that it did.

[Chris]

non-national citizens

[Chris]

The Cons ution never granted (governmental/citizen-level) rights to non citizens. A lot of liberals love to believe that it did.

Looks like your bs detector went off at the same time

[Pavlov]

The Cons ution wanted to create equity for all in as much as possible; I'd stop short of saying it was "especially for minorities" in today's terms.

As far as slavery goes, the framers knew that it was a problem that would hit a head within five generations / was a problem that could explode in any given generation; that's why some such as T-Jeff wanted a rider to end slavery within two decades.

But they didn't.

And they spelled out the citizenship requirements for president.

Which you think is ridiculous.

lol

[Spurtacular]

Looks like your bs detector went off at the same time

No passage exists that say non citizens get the same right as citizens. A cons ution by definition is applicable to the people creating it. Nor can I just write a cons ution for the people of Afghanistan.

[Pavlov]

The Cons ution inherently protects from the mob or majority. ie: even if the vast majority of people find KKK speech offensive and reprehensible, the cons ution protects it. If you're in the majority, you're much less likely to need such protection. Works the same with pretty much every other right. Even if a State like New York or California wants to outright ban weapons, and that's the view of the majority, the Cons ution protects the minority.

There's obviously a formal process that the majority can use to change the rights granted by the Cons ution, but it has a high bar and a long consensus process, as it should.

Talking about consensus, that's what the framers had to deal with when it came to voting. States clearly didn't want to allow slaves or women to vote, and having a Cons ution in place was much more important than delaying it for those reasons.

They punted, and that makes sense. There was a mechanism to correct that wrong, and over time, it did. But the lingering issue is that there's no Cons utional right to vote, there's some voting discrimination protections that were enshrined later on.

Circling back to the starting argument, it shouldn't be shocking that a State would like to grant non-national citizens the right to vote. We can discuss that on the merits, but barring a Federal law outlawing it, it would be perfectly within their realm.

Props to you for constantly throwing your pearls before these swine.

They aren't smart enough to understand what you're saying.

[Spurtacular]

Props to you for constantly throwing your pearls before these swine.

Today's sociopath.

[Spurtacular]

But they didn't.

And they spelled out the citizenship requirements for president.

Which you think is ridiculous.

lol

Not my argument, bruh. Not a strong day for you.

[Pavlov]

Not my argument, bruh. Not a strong day for you.

it was.

Sorry, you're stupid.

lol "implied" requirements

[Pavlov]

Today's sociopath.

El Nono is exponentially smarter than you.

Sorry, derp.

You're stupid.

[Spurtacular]

it was.

Sorry, you're stupid.

lol "implied" requirements

I had no cons utional argument regarding the president.

Doubling down on your sociopath truth.
Par.

[Spurtacular]

El Nono is exponentially smarter than you.

Sorry, derp.

You're stupid.

Desperate for a W.
Get him, big brother!

[Pavlov]

I had no cons utional argument regarding the president.

Doubling down on your sociopath truth.
Par.

Your argument was it would've been stupid for the founders to spell anything out and deliberately implied requirements for voting.

Do you realize how stupid that argument is?

lol

[pgardn]

Props to you for constantly throwing your pearls before these swine.

They aren't smart enough to understand what you're saying.

They need help.
Its nice to see some legit stuff coming for team red. (Even though I don’t think this fits any team)
This site is better with genuine stuff instead of Chris and the constant twitter quotes coming from the abyss of ignorance.

[Spurtacular]

Your argument was it would've been stupid for the founders to spell anything out and deliberately implied requirements for voting.

Do you realize how stupid that argument is?

lol

What does this have to do with the president? Are you enjoying moving the goalposts?

[Pavlov]

What does this have to do with the president? Are you enjoying moving the goalposts?

What makes you think they would spell one out and imply the other?

Explain your theory.

[Spurtacular]

What makes you think they would spell one out and imply the other?

Explain your theory.

This has been explained in this thread.

[Pavlov]

This has been explained in this thread.

It has not.

Why would they spell out one and merely imply the other allowing themselves to be misinterpreted?

Explain.