Is anyone claiming that it says that? No? Then why ask? When Dukeanthony says the constitution prohibits women voting, allows slavery and allows only white male landowners to vote then I want where it ACTUALLY says that. No one is making the absurd claim that arms on Tuesdays is in the constitution, Your trying to make a point that cannot be made.
Is Ron Paul The Kucinich of the Republican Party?
- Thread starter dukeanthony
- Start date
laughingduck
Well-Known Member
Listen carefully, IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE CONSTITUTION! Do you really have to be told everything you should and should not do? Quit with the poor frekin me undertones, go get a job so you do not have so much time to whine.
laughingduck
Well-Known Member
Is this the "I read somewhere white folks were mean to my people" thread?
dukeanthony
New Member
It does if it leaves it up to the state. And they Rectified the situation with Amendments
Read them some time
This doesn't make any sense. You do understand about how compromise during the times the Constitution was written caused those things you are talking about.
its called property rights, which is what we were founded on. That allows you to raise that arm unimpeded.sorry, i wanted a direct quote involving left arm and tuesday. i don't care what you think it says, you lied and have obviously never read the constitution.
just returning the favor.
jeff f
New Member
me too, he has great hair too. like on the 1972 , large model gi joe . that particular gi joe had an attachment that could catch onto a wire and zip line to the other tower. in 72' this was no easy task. state of the art.....
oh, kucininch, so much fun to watch. sorta lke watching david dukes polar opposite.
sorry, just thought that needed to be said.
jeff f
New Member
right the fuck on bro!
jeff f
New Member
this cracks me up.
spinning would mean that a person exagerated, or stretched the truth.
since he ha a specific question, and you didnt answer but with retorical diatribe, and emotions, i do believe you, by definition, are the one spinning.
just to get the terms straight....carry on, cant wait to here your next "point"
it should be good
dukeanthony
New Member
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
The Constitution allows states to determine the qualifications for voting, and until the 1910s most states disenfranchised women. The amendment was the culmination of the women's suffrage movement, which fought at both state and national levels to achieve the vote.
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the amendment and first introduced it in 1878; it was forty-one years later, in 1919, when the Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification. A year later, it was ratified by the requisite number of states, with Tennessee's ratification being the final vote needed to add the amendment to the Constitution.
The Nineteenth Amendment was unsuccessfully challenged in Leser v. Garnett (1922). In that case, the Supreme Court rejected claims that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted
So again Why did they have to amend the constitution?
The Constitution allows states to determine the qualifications for voting, and until the 1910s most states disenfranchised women. The amendment was the culmination of the women's suffrage movement, which fought at both state and national levels to achieve the vote.
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the amendment and first introduced it in 1878; it was forty-one years later, in 1919, when the Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification. A year later, it was ratified by the requisite number of states, with Tennessee's ratification being the final vote needed to add the amendment to the Constitution.
The Nineteenth Amendment was unsuccessfully challenged in Leser v. Garnett (1922). In that case, the Supreme Court rejected claims that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted
So again Why did they have to amend the constitution?
jeff f
New Member
slam dunk!
jeff f
New Member
you are stupid.....well maybe not, but your argument here is....just sayin
nope. he really is stupid. thats how his brain really works.... really
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
Well-Known Member
this made me laugh for some reason. grammar police weeee oooo weeee ooooo
now that the climate change hoax has been exposed, what is Algore going to do? He has made the leap. He has made the leap to discredited, crackpot, overpopulation theories. It is amazing. "In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution. He offered some ideas about what might be done for [women] in the name of stabilizing population growth. 'One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,' Gore said.
"'You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children.'" He has acknowledged that he has no interest, no intention of controlling any sexual urges, so women better be prepared to deal with guys like him -- and they better be able to have access to abortion or what have you. There's much more to this. This is descent, folks, into inanity. Algore is doing Paul Ehrlich now: Overpopulation. The key is women. Women must be made to do the right thing, in order to save the planet.
"'You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children.'" He has acknowledged that he has no interest, no intention of controlling any sexual urges, so women better be prepared to deal with guys like him -- and they better be able to have access to abortion or what have you. There's much more to this. This is descent, folks, into inanity. Algore is doing Paul Ehrlich now: Overpopulation. The key is women. Women must be made to do the right thing, in order to save the planet.
Al Gore is a racist, and his father voted against the Civil Rights Act--------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EJB_r4cXM
Still waiting for you to show us EXACTLY where in the constitution it prohibited Women, non landowners, and non whites from voting. I'm going to have to wait forever aren't I? You know why? Because it isn't in there.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
in case you haven't noticed, not all the laws of the land are contained in the constitution. it is a document that grants certain powers to federal authority and places limits on how authority may intrude into the lives of citizens. nowhere in the constitution are speed limits set, are murder or theft specifically prohibited or the thousands of other crimes spelled out. these are not the rules by which the citizenry are expected to live, but those by which our governments are limited in their scope. from time to time there arises some need to further restrict or define the role of authority and these are the amendments to the constitution. we can look at the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments as bestowing additional rights of american citizens, but this is not at all what they did. those amendments prohibited authority from forbidding certain segments of our society their place at the polls.
dukeanthony
New Member
I take you think that is a good thing. Excellent
Then States rights that discriminate are bad. MMkay
But Ron paul is all for "states rights" including the discriminatory ones
undertheice
Well-Known Member
it's all or nothing with you, isn't it. you have that same myopic view of reality that we have come to expect from zealots through the ages. what part of compromise don't you understand? why is it so difficult for you to wrap that limited intellect around the concept that states' rights should reign supreme except where they run contrary to the constitution? why the hell do you think it was made so difficult to amend that document in the first place. you so quickly ran out of reasonable arguments that you have found yourself with nowhere to run but the outrageous.