Racism runs pretty deep in the TRUMP administration....this concerns the proposed citizenship question

[hal2kilo]

So you're mad the GOP might "cheat" you out of Congressional seats you'd only be getting because illegals cheated the immigration system and our laws to be in your state to begin with?

Apparently, you are just going to go on and on into diversion of the fact that counting all persons is in the fucking constitution. Go on, just keep being an idiot.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Look, like I keep telling you, if you have a problem with the Constitution counting everyone then amend the Constitution. What's the problem here?

He wouldn't have enough votes to change it. With the fact that there wouldn't be enough votes to Amend it, he wants the SCOTUS to Amend it via the court.

 

[glenn1]

Look, like I keep telling you, if you have a problem with the Constitution counting everyone then amend the Constitution. What's the problem here?

SCOTUS can invent a "right" to add the citizenship question from thin air. "Penumbras, formed by emanations" just like how abortion was legalized. You seem OK with the constitution being twisted when it suits your purposes.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you're mad the GOP might "cheat" you out of Congressional seats you'd only be getting because illegals cheated the immigration system and our laws to be in your state to begin with?

I'm just in favor of an accurate count. It's the Constitutional duty of the Executive branch to provide that in an honest fashion.

OTOH, the GOP hasn't been honest about much of anything for decades. They're post-truth with a vengeance.

 

[fskimospy]

SCOTUS can invent a "right" to add the citizenship question from thin air. "Penumbras, formed by emanations" just like how abortion was legalized. You seem OK with the constitution being twisted when it suits your purposes.

If you're going back to that nothing in the law matters anyway argument then why do you care if people break it?

 

[fskimospy]

He wouldn't have enough votes to change it. With the fact that there wouldn't be enough votes to Amend it, he wants the SCOTUS to Amend it via the court.

Well of course he wouldn't. Once you look at all glenn's posts through a lens of someone who only cares about spiting people he dislikes it all makes sense. He would never bother even trying to amend the Constitution because he doesn't actually care. He's just trying to find ways to piss people off or exact revenge on his imagined enemies.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Well of course he wouldn't. Once you look at all glenn's posts through a lens of someone who only cares about spiting people he dislikes it all makes sense. He would never bother even trying to amend the Constitution because he doesn't actually care. He's just trying to find ways to piss people off or exact revenge on his imagined enemies.

I know glenn's posting history well, I was a lurker for more than 2 years before I actually registered. It may have even been one of his posts that forced me to actually register and respond.

 

[senseamp]

SCOTUS can invent a "right" to add the citizenship question from thin air. "Penumbras, formed by emanations" just like how abortion was legalized. You seem OK with the constitution being twisted when it suits your purposes.

Congress can create SCOTUS seats out of thin air too.

 

[glenn1]

If you're going back to that nothing in the law matters anyway argument then why do you care if people break it?

The above statement about "who cares if people break the law" said without irony about illegals. I guess having their below market rate labor benefit you wasn't enough, now you want to have a political advantage to exploit from them also.

 

[fskimospy]

The above statement about "who cares if people break the law" said without irony about illegals. I guess having their below market rate labor benefit you wasn't enough, now you want to have a political advantage to exploit from them also.

Once again, if you would like to amend the Constitution to change this you are free to attempt to do so.

Since you appear to be angry when people don't follow the law you should be happy that I'm advocating we DO follow the law!

 

[glenn1]

Once again, if you would like to amend the Constitution to change this you are free to attempt to do so.

Since you appear to be angry when people don't follow the law you should be happy that I'm advocating we DO follow the law!

For just this single instance, or is there a change of heart where you'd going to apply that principle to the other sections of the constitution where you want to re-interpret it as you see fit? Having a "strict" reading of this provision would be an easy accept if you stopped trying to ignore other sections, inventing new stuff, or pretending that words don't mean what they mean in other sections. There's a lot of "...shall not be infringed" statements you'll actually need to start honoring if you want to "follow the law."

 

[fskimospy]

For just this single instance, or is there a change of heart where you'd going to apply that principle to the other sections of the constitution where you want to re-interpret it as you see fit? Having a "strict" reading of this provision would be an easy accept if you stopped trying to ignore other sections, inventing new stuff, or pretending that words don't mean what they mean in other sections. There's a lot of "...shall not be infringed" statements you'll actually need to start honoring if you want to "follow the law."

Of course I'm open to interpretations of the Constitution where it is ambiguous. After all, large parts of the Constitution were made deliberately ambiguous so that government would have room to function. For example 'infringe' doesn't mean simply to 'restrict in any way', it means to unreasonably restrict or restrict without good cause. Therefore when the right to bear arms can't be infringed it doesn't mean we can't enact gun laws, it just means we can't enact 'unreasonable' gun laws.

There are some parts that aren't ambiguous though, like if a human being who resides in the United States 365 days a year and is not an untaxed Native American is a person for the purposes of representation. The Constitution talks about citizens in some parts and persons in others, specifically because they desired to make this distinction.

 

[ivwshane]

He wouldn't have enough votes to change it. With the fact that there wouldn't be enough votes to Amend it, he wants the SCOTUS to Amend it via the court.

Damn activist liberal judges!

 

[Viper1j]

What is the big deal about this? Start a campaign, go on air and in print, telling everyone to answer yes to the citizenship question.Or...

Si, Da, Oui, はい , or 是 بله, Vâng, or finally sim.

My apologies to any languages I missed.

 

[senseamp]

SCOTUS voted the citizenship question down, while allowing partisan gerrymandering to continue. Roberts is playing the long game, avoiding obvious landmines to the court's legitimacy.

 

[Jhhnn]

SCOTUS voted the citizenship question down, while allowing partisan gerrymandering to continue. Roberts is playing the long game, avoiding obvious landmines to the court's legitimacy.

It also affirms the idea that our Commerce Secretary outright lied to Congress.

 

[senseamp]

It also affirms the idea that our Commerce Secretary outright lied to Congress.

And to courts. Lock him up.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Looks like the raging orange shitgibbon wants the Constitution violated since he didn't get his way.

Let's see the strict Constitutionalists on the right argue to support this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1144298734311878657