Discussion:
Why do dummies think the "founding fathers" [sic] were so smart...
(too old to reply)
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-05 14:52:36 UTC
Permalink
In article
In order to form a more perfect union, you recognise the mistakes
of the past and try to correct them.
I agree
Then do so. Say something unkind about the racists and slavers
that wrote the constitution.
There were those who tried to end slavery... then there were the others
who were PLANTATION OWNERS who became Democrats and tried to save
slavery with secession and then by dragging the 90% of the people in the
South into a civil war....

Democrats as it turns out were/are the racists and slavers the
secessionists and PLANTATION OWNERS that fought the elimination of
slavery from the Constitution twice.... once when it was written and
once when they engaged in secession and civil war.

It wasn't Southerners since 90% of Southerners owned ZERO SLAVES.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-07 18:02:41 UTC
Permalink
In article
Then you should have no problem posting credible evidence of every
census since 1790 supporting the belief that people not legally in the
United States having representation in the US Congress...."excluding
Indians not taxed" of course.
The notion of 'people not legally in the United States' dates
more from the 1920s than 1790s.
The "notion" doesn't change the fact the of 'people not legally in the
United States' were not considered for representation in the United
States Congress. Yet this is what little Rudy claimed, "Everyone is
counted. That's how we do it. That's how we've always done it."
Prior to Amendment XIV, there was no "notion" of a US citizen as the
populace considered themselves citizens of their STATE. That Congress
screwed up in hastily passing Amendment XIII had to be rectified by the
hastily passed Amendment XIV. In THAT Amendment they created the
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside."  https://tinyurl.com/y2spv62q
Don't forget that being a NATURAL BORN citizen was a requirement in the
original Constitution for the President of the United States.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This means that being born in the United States, was always a part of
the designation of Citizenship and those living that "were here at the
time of the adoption" of the Constitution were citizens, which would
make all the people born here to the original group of citizens, all
citizens. Among what ever other ways there were to become a citizen.

Amendment XIX
*The right of citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

So when it comes to citizenship and voting *it clearly says* *that*
*citizens have a RIGHT to vote* and it doesn't protect any NON citizens
voting RIGHTS.
Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, prior to the ratification of
Amendment XIV, there is no legal document referring to a person living
in the United States as being a United States citizen....the only people
legally represented in Congress via the census.
The intent of a census is to plans for the future based on a "snapshot" of
the population. Those not legally in the United States may dramatically
change over a 10 year period (census) , as often happens with various
Administrations at both the state and federal levels. Such changes would
be placing birdens on the states to plan and administer their infrastructure, housing, schooling, roads and fiscal requirements.
From a perspective of common sense, like a state, you could not administer living conditions, including food, water, sewer, etc. and living expenses of your own home if uninvited folks entered/existed your own house whenever they felt like it.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-07 21:00:16 UTC
Permalink
In article
Then you should have no problem posting credible evidence of every
census since 1790 supporting the belief that people not legally in the
United States having representation in the US Congress...."excluding
Indians not taxed" of course.
The notion of 'people not legally in the United States' dates
more from the 1920s than 1790s.
The "notion" doesn't change the fact the of 'people not legally in the
United States' were not considered for representation in the United
States Congress. Yet this is what little Rudy claimed, "Everyone is
counted. That's how we do it. That's how we've always done it."
Prior to Amendment XIV, there was no "notion" of a US citizen as the
populace considered themselves citizens of their STATE. That Congress
screwed up in hastily passing Amendment XIII had to be rectified by the
hastily passed Amendment XIV. In THAT Amendment they created the
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside."  https://tinyurl.com/y2spv62q
Don't forget that being a NATURAL BORN citizen was a requirement in the
original Constitution for the President of the United States.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This means that being born in the United States, was always a part of
the designation of Citizenship and those living that "were here at the
time of the adoption" of the Constitution were citizens, which would
make all the people born here to the original group of citizens, all
citizens. Among what ever other ways there were to become a citizen.

Amendment XIX
*The right of citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

So when it comes to citizenship and voting *it clearly says* *that*
*citizens have a RIGHT to vote* and it doesn't protect any NON citizens
voting RIGHTS.

And while I'm on this Amendment, wouldn't they need a similar Amendment
to allow GAYS to MARRY.... just as they needed an Amendment to allow
women and gays to vote?

The obvious question is where is the Amendment for GAY MARRIAGE? The
14th amendment existed when the 19th Amendment was written. SO all they
needed to do was to enforce the 14th Amendment, according to Democrats?

The 19th amendment is superfluous wasted ink.... according to the
Supreme Court who created Gay Marriage. So which lie is the lie we
should believe... the lie that women needed an Amendment to vote or that
Gays don't need an amendment to marry?
Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, prior to the ratification of
Amendment XIV, there is no legal document referring to a person living
in the United States as being a United States citizen....the only people
legally represented in Congress via the census.
The intent of a census is to plans for the future based on a "snapshot" of
the population. Those not legally in the United States may dramatically
change over a 10 year period (census) , as often happens with various
Administrations at both the state and federal levels. Such changes would
be placing birdens on the states to plan and administer their infrastructure, housing, schooling, roads and fiscal requirements.
From a perspective of common sense, like a state, you could not administer living conditions, including food, water, sewer, etc. and living expenses of your own home if uninvited folks entered/existed your own house whenever they felt like it.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
Loading...