Reply With Quote
Doesn't state foreign residents anywhere. That was "deliberate".
states "people" in some sections, and "citizens" in others.Yea, big liberty to state that an American cons ution was for Americans.
that was deliberate
Doesn't state foreign residents anywhere. That was "deliberate".
they are still people
Yeah why do you think they didn't clearly say "citizens" in every section instead of "people"?
State your theory on that.
dont mind him. he's just taking liberty with interpretation
Hey ElNono, what's a "non-national citizen"?
There are natural human rights that Americans have acknowledged go to everyone. Other rights are specific to Americans within the American system. A guy living in Russia doesn't just suddenly break into social security; well, you never know with the Democrats though....
I was probably wrong in labeling it 'citizen'. It should have been 'resident'.
ie: A legal resident alien. Not a natural born person, but a resident of the US for jurisdiction purposes.
I've got citizen and resident mixed up, since citizen is the expression for resident in other languages.
Well, that's what I was trying to point out. Not all rights apply to non-citizens, but some do. You mentioned that there was no explicit rights granted by the Cons ution that can be applied to non-citizens, and that's what I wanted to correct. Not being pedantic, just because I think it's important that's well known.
Today's non-Manu ElNono smh
Today's non-Manu ElNono smh
Ruh roh. Chumpettes might accuse you of not knowing what pedantic means.
As long as you and I agree on what it means, we're golden, tbhRuh roh. Chumpettes might accuse you of not knowing what pedantic means.
Fair enough
interesting thread on the electoral college:
You're right. This is a problem. Democrats should take the lead and break up the electoral votes in California.
not sure what you mean.
explain?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/us/ca...rnd/index.html
We adopted the EC primarily to count slaves for apportionment.
The "failure rate" (electoral/popular inversion) for elections closer than 3% in the popular vote is about 30%.
That's the original compact, but is it fair?
Additionally, if it doesn't prevent an incompetent crook like Trump from taking the presidency what is it good for?
Exactly, that way 3 states can pick the president all the time.
Wana hir dose voices!
The thing that bugs me is why the is coal a ing talking point in 2016. Coal is dead. A couple thousand people. But that will win an election.Idiot
The solution to this is simply making more states compe ive. If anything, this is an indictment to the general inep ude of a large swat of politicians to engage their electorate in meaningful ways.
I don't think this is actually a failure of the political game itself, but a failure of the players.
The electoral college was created as an anti-democratic (anti-popular vote) mechanism to restrict the influence of The People whom the oligarchic (white wealthy MEN), racist (no vote for blacks or Indians), misogynist (no vote for women) FFs detested, or at very least, deeply mistrusted, on the assumption that electors were more trusted and reasonable to override the unruly, uneducated, unsophisticated masses of The People.
The Cons ution was never meant to be operate USA as a representative, proportional, "popular" democracy, but as an oligarchy of wealthy white men
eg, an incompetent, criminal, inexperienced non-politician like Trash voted in by wild, crazy, suckered, demagogued People would blocked by the EC.
The EC hasn't worked, so PVL Trash is so-called Pres, and EC must die, and as must the Senate as defined
Also, the cap of 435 Reps for a country of 330M (2019) is also now ing up any pretension of "democracy", since 435 was fixed in 1911 century for population of 95M.
"There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives.
That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth in the United States.
The first House of Representatives in 1789 had only 65 members.
The number of seats in the House was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, and then to 142 members after the 1800 headcount.
The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. But it isn't the reason the number of representatives has been stuck there.
"Why There Are 435 Members
There's really nothing special about that number.
Congress regularly increased the number of seats in the House based on the nation's population growth from 1790 to 1913, and 435 is the most recent count.
The number of seats in the House has not been increased in more than a century, though, even though every 10 years the census shows the population of the United States growing.
Why the Number of House Members Hasn't Changed Since 1913
There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which set that number in stone."
https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242
btw, the which party DOMINATED Congress in 1929?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/71st_United_States_Congress
The party of the Haves
The Cons ution, now rigged and weaponized by the oligarchy, prioritized area (50 areas) over population, and is horribly anti-representative.
and even the House is ed up, as CA (40M people) may lose a Rep to, IIRC, MT (1M).
So now 30% of the people in low-population, rural states control 60% of Senators.
iow, USA is governed by anti-democratic House, ed up anti-democratic Senate, anti-democratic, oligarchic EC, so that
rigged America is ruled by minority and BigDonor oligarchy.
So, Let's Fix It!
Nope, that window is closed and glued shut, never to re-open, as the oligarchy has $Ts available to control rigged govt, and will spend whatever $100B is takes to defend its rigging status quo.
Even the Dem establishment is anti-progressive, anti-democratic as Pelosi, etc have every intention of shutting down and out the newly elected, diverse, progressive Reps, who managed to slip by the Dem establishment's efforts to block their candidacies.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-27-2019 at 10:18 AM.
Is not Trump´s fault that Hilda sat on her ass during the whole campaign expecting the ¨landslide¨.
The electoral college was created as an anti-democratic (anti-popular vote) mechanism to restrict the influence of The People whom the oligarchic (white wealthy MEN), racist (no vote for blacks or Indians), misogynist (no vote for women) FFs detested, or at very least, deeply mistrusted, on the assumption that electors were more trusted and reasonable to override the unruly, uneducated, unsophisticated masses of The People.
The Cons ution was never meant to be operate USA as a representative, proportional, "popular" democracy, but as an oligarchy of wealthy white men
eg, an incompetent, criminal, inexperienced non-politician like Trash voted in by wild, crazy, suckered, demagogued People would blocked by the EC.
The EC hasn't worked, so PVL Trash is so-called Pres, and EC must die, and as must the Senate as defined
Also, the cap of 435 Reps for a country of 330M (2019) is also now ing up any pretension of "democracy", since 435 was fixed in 1911 century for population of 95M.
"There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives.
That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth in the United States.
The first House of Representatives in 1789 had only 65 members.
The number of seats in the House was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, and then to 142 members after the 1800 headcount.
The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. But it isn't the reason the number of representatives has been stuck there.
"Why There Are 435 Members
There's really nothing special about that number.
Congress regularly increased the number of seats in the House based on the nation's population growth from 1790 to 1913, and 435 is the most recent count.
The number of seats in the House has not been increased in more than a century, though, even though every 10 years the census shows the population of the United States growing.
Why the Number of House Members Hasn't Changed Since 1913
There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which set that number in stone."
https://www.thoughtco.com/members-in-the-house-of-representatives-3368242
btw, the which party DOMINATED Congress in 1929?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/71st_United_States_Congress
The party of the Haves
The Cons ution, now rigged and weaponized by the oligarchy, prioritized area (50 areas) over population, and is horribly anti-representative.
and even the House is ed up, as CA (40M people) may lose a Rep to, IIRC, MT (1M).
So now 30% of the people in low-population, rural states control 60% of Senators.
iow, USA is governed by anti-democratic House, ed up anti-democratic Senate, anti-democratic, oligarchic EC, so that
rigged America is ruled by minority and BigDonor oligarchy.
So, Let's Fix It!
Nope, that window is closed and glued shut, never to re-open, as the oligarchy has $Ts available to control rigged govt, and will spend whatever $100B is takes to defend its rigging status quo.
Even the Dem establishment is anti-progressive, anti-democratic as Pelosi, etc have every intention of shutting down and out the newly elected, diverse, progressive Reps, who managed to slip by the Dem establishment's efforts to block their candidacies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
