Couldn't Vote Her Out... But wait! I still have options.

outcaster · Jan 13, 2011

Sniperchoke - 1/13/2011 8:40 PM

Outcaster. Any answer to the enumerated powers question.

You want to ask me questions about enumerated powers? I don't think you deserve any right to ask any Constitutional questions, since you completely botched an easy question on 3/5's human (something you should have learned in 9th grade civics class). I should get my 16 year old to argue Constitutional law with you. At least get an internet education, when you do, then get back to me.

SpurHunter · Jan 13, 2011

This will be my last post on this matter, enjoy.

"Palin Targeted in Violence-Tinged Tweets Following Arizona Massacre"
Critics of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have turned to Twitter to post hate "tweets" suggesting that "she should be shot" and "assassinated."

A four-minute video montage of the the "tweets" -- apparently sent after Saturday's massacre in Arizona that left six people dead and 14 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- was posted to YouTube on Tuesday.

"My hatred for Sarah Palin continues to grow... I think this woman should be assassinated. Sorry about chya," was a message posted by "jenbobbi."

Another user, "misskate83," posted: "Sarah Palin should be shot for her encouragement of fanaticism against Democrats."

The video montage, set to the tune of The Beatles' "Imagine," had nearly 400 views of as Thursday afternoon.

Another user, embryodb, posted: "am I wrong to say sarah palin should be shot, fully realizing it would just crystallize radical right wing retards into more violence?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y

EricM · Jan 13, 2011

outcaster - 1/13/2011 9:08 PM

Sniperchoke - 1/13/2011 8:40 PM

Outcaster. Any answer to the enumerated powers question.

Click to expand...

You want to ask me questions about enumerated powers? I don't think you deserve any right to ask any Constitutional questions, since you completely botched an easy question on 3/5's human (something you should have learned in 9th grade civics class). I should get my 16 year old to argue Constitutional law with you. At least get an internet education, when you do, then get back to me.

Crap.

Danny, you're making up your own words to the Constitution now, and you have the nerve to berate another person about his knowledge of the Constitution's Article and Section numbers and say that you don't think he as any RIGHT to ask any Constitutional questions!!!

In no place does it refer to slaves as 3/5 human. Have your 16 year old read it to you. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRESENTATION AND TAX APPORTIONMENT a number ( "Enumeration" ) wasderived by adding the entire population all free persons, by ignoring the Indian population, and by adding 3/5 of the population of all others. That number was then divided by 30,000 to arrive at the number of representatives per state. The non-voting, non tax-paying "other Persons" were counted at 3/5 of their population to basically give the southern states a greater representation than if they were not included at all. 

This determined how many representatives each state was allowed, not who was human.

This method of counting was later changed by a Constitutional Amendment.

This had nothing at all to do with considering them 3/5 human. Just another distortion, commonly viewed as the truth because someone said so.

From the US Constitution: <a name="1.0"></a>Article. I.

<a name="1.1"></a>Section. 1.

<a name="1.1.1"></a>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

<a name="1.2"></a>Section. 2.

<a name="1.2.1"></a>The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

<a name="1.2.2"></a>No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

<a name="1.2.3"></a>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

EricM · Jan 13, 2011

From Outcaster:[/QUOTE]Turns out, if you can convince enough congressman, senators, and state legislators to amend and un-amend, the Constitution can be anything we want it to be.
[/QUOTE]


Seems to be a bit of a cavalier statement, considering the importance and enormous difficulty involved in amending our Constitution. 

For those who don't know, or don't remember, it takes an affirmative vote by 66% of ALL Senators, AND 66% of ALL Representatives, AND 75% of ALL State Legislatures to enact a Constitutional Amendment. This is a HUGE required majority! Of the thousands of amendment proposals that have been made, only 33 (total, including the first 10 as the Bill of Rights) passed the vote in Congress and only 27 amendments have actually been ratified.

And yes, one of the things that make our Constitution great is that it is living and can be changed as our knowledge and society changes, and if a mistake is made it can be corrected. Not an easy thing to do, and it shouldn't be,but if it is truly important to Americans it can be done.

outcaster · Jan 14, 2011

EricM - 1/14/2011 1:29 AM

From Outcaster:

Turns out, if you can convince enough congressman, senators, and state legislators to amend and un-amend, the Constitution can be anything we want it to be.
[/QUOTE]


Seems to be a bit of a cavalier statement, considering the importance and enormous difficulty involved in amending our Constitution. 

For those who don't know, or don't remember, it takes an affirmative vote by 66% of ALL Senators, AND 66% of ALL Representatives, AND 75% of ALL State Legislatures to enact a Constitutional Amendment. This is a HUGE required majority! Of the thousands of amendment proposals that have been made, only 33 (total, including the first 10 as the Bill of Rights) passed the vote in Congress and only 27 amendments have actually been ratified.

And yes, one of the things that make our Constitution great is that it is living and can be changed as our knowledge and society changes, and if a mistake is made it can be corrected. Not an easy thing to do, and it shouldn't be, but if it is truly important to Americans it can be done.





[/QUOTE]

I'll take this one first. Since you have actually have taken the time to understand the Constitution. The statement I made is completely true "Turns out, if you can convince enough congressman, senators, and state legislators to amend and un-amend, the Constitution can be anything we want it to be"

I never said it was easy, but it can be done. In the early 1900's preachers, women's groups, and others got together and convinced enough people, (senators, congressmen, and legislators), that the sale, manufacturer, and consuming of alcohol should be banned. This is an example of what I would consider a "right wing conservative" position becoming mainstream, then becoming part of our Constitution. Additionally if sniper, you, me doubts the Constitutionality of any aspect of our gov't and laws, we can file suit and have the law struck down. So most of the things sniper wails against, as being un-constitutional, most likely has been challenged in our courts many times over. But he is still free to try. But the fact remains that any of us can take and issue or position (no matter how crazy, wrong or right it may be), convince enough people the we are right, and one day see it as part of the Constitution. I'll look at the other issue you raised later.

Sniperchoke · Jan 14, 2011

outcaster - 1/13/2011 9:08 PM

Sniperchoke - 1/13/2011 8:40 PM

Outcaster. Any answer to the enumerated powers question.

Click to expand...

You want to ask me questions about enumerated powers? I don't think you deserve any right to ask any Constitutional questions, since you completely botched an easy question on 3/5's human (something you should have learned in 9th grade civics class). I should get my 16 year old to argue Constitutional law with you. At least get an internet education, when you do, then get back to me.

I can't believe it you got me. Im just an ignoramoose. I don't no nothin without checkin the enternet. Your soo good n smart. Ill just lisen to you from nowe on. I aint got no smarts. Really if you had a brain you would have noticed that I addressed the 3/5 s of a person when I included the Bill of Rights. Im sorry I didn't know off hand the exact # that referenced the 3/5s of a person portion. I would dare say most layman's would not. Sorry I do have a life and business to run. I don't have time to google all your requests. I thinks its funny that you continue to dodge my question you must not be able to google anything that disputes it.

Bubbakat · Jan 14, 2011

Sniper, don't worry about it. He didn't know the answer either until Eric posted that good post he made. If you will pay close attention to him some times you will notice that he is really talking to himself.

Guest · Jan 14, 2011

Bubbakat - 1/14/2011 11:25 AM

Sniper, don't worry about it. He didn't know the answer either until Eric posted that good post he made. If you will pay close attention to him some times you will notice that he is really talking to himself.

emoUpsmile emoUpsmile Willard you ain't saying he is a legend in his own mind are you? emoUpsmile emoUpsmile

Sniperchoke · Jan 14, 2011

Hey I may not know the exact #'s on the Constitution but atleast I know how many states there are in the Union. Unlike some. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Guest · Jan 14, 2011

SpurHunter - 1/13/2011 10:16 PM

This will be my last post on this matter, enjoy.

"Palin Targeted in Violence-Tinged Tweets Following Arizona Massacre"
Critics of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have turned to Twitter to post hate "tweets" suggesting that "she should be shot" and "assassinated."

A four-minute video montage of the the "tweets" -- apparently sent after Saturday's massacre in Arizona that left six people dead and 14 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- was posted to YouTube on Tuesday.

"My hatred for Sarah Palin continues to grow... I think this woman should be assassinated. Sorry about chya," was a message posted by "jenbobbi."

Another user, "misskate83," posted: "Sarah Palin should be shot for her encouragement of fanaticism against Democrats."

The video montage, set to the tune of The Beatles' "Imagine," had nearly 400 views of as Thursday afternoon.

Another user, embryodb, posted: "am I wrong to say sarah palin should be shot, fully realizing it would just crystallize radical right wing retards into more violence?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y

Hmm I reckon outcast must not have a reply for this. Anybody care to make a wager that if he does reply to this it will be to blame Sarah?

outcaster · Jan 14, 2011

EricM - 1/14/2011 12:55 AM

outcaster - 1/13/2011 9:08 PM

Sniperchoke - 1/13/2011 8:40 PM

Outcaster. Any answer to the enumerated powers question.

Click to expand...

You want to ask me questions about enumerated powers? I don't think you deserve any right to ask any Constitutional questions, since you completely botched an easy question on 3/5's human (something you should have learned in 9th grade civics class). I should get my 16 year old to argue Constitutional law with you. At least get an internet education, when you do, then get back to me.

Click to expand...





Crap.

Danny, you're making up your own words to the Constitution now, and you have the nerve to berate another person about his knowledge of the Constitution's Article and Section numbers and say that you don't think he as any RIGHT to ask any Constitutional questions !!!

In no place does it refer to slaves as 3/5 human. Have your 16 year old read it to you. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRESENTATION AND TAX APPORTIONMENT a number ( "Enumeration" ) was derived by adding the entire population all free persons, by ignoring the Indian population, and by adding 3/5 of the population of all others. That number was then divided by 30,000 to arrive at the number of representatives per state. The non-voting, non tax-paying "other Persons" were counted at 3/5 of their population to basically give the southern states a greater representation than if they were not included at all. 

This determined how many representatives each state was allowed, not who was human.

This method of counting was later changed by a Constitutional Amendment.

This had nothing at all to do with considering them 3/5 human. Just another distortion, commonly viewed as the truth because someone said so.

From the US Constitution: <a name="1.0"></a>Article. I.

<a name="1.1"></a>Section. 1.

<a name="1.1.1"></a>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

<a name="1.2"></a>Section. 2.

<a name="1.2.1"></a>The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

<a name="1.2.2"></a>No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

<a name="1.2.3"></a>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

I promised I would get back to you on this topic, didn't have enough time this morning, but here it is.

It is my belief that many/most of the libertarian/strict Constitutionalist types don't really know as much about the Constitution as they claim. They often view the founding fathers as if they were Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. They can't in any way acknowledge that the Constitution, especially in it's original form is quite imperfect. I asked sniper about the the 3/5s section of the Constitution, because this section deals with how States where slaved were held were to be counted for the purposes of taxation and Congressional representation. In discussing this area of the Constitution, it could demonstrate that many of the founding fathers held slaves, and believed in a slaved based economic system, something that we would all call disgusting today. The very fact that enslaved individuals are even discussed in that manner, in our Constitution demonstrates that the document is imperfect, sometimes needs amending, and sometimes needs to be broadly interpreted.

What happened after that was quite amazing. I asked sniper his thoughts on Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3, and assumed he would at least "google" it, and if he wanted to, tell me what he thought about it. But instead of doing just that, he responded with an opinion, which read like a copy and paste job, on a completely different aspect of the Constitution dealing with the "general welfare" clause. Making matters worse, he backtracked and claimed that he covered the slavery topic with an earlier generic post that stating he supported the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendment. (something my 10 year old can tell you), Slavery was not addressed until the 13th Amendment.

Just for the record, here was my question:
Tell me sniper..... since you believe in such a stringent view of the Constitution. Please tell us all your views on Article 1, Section2, Paragraph 3., and what our Founding Fathers intended for us.

Just for the record, here was his response:
You are reffering to the general wellfare clause.
Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution.
So Outcaster what do you think about the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution???

I guess what drew such a harsh response from me, was the fact that sniper didn't even bother to read the article, section and paragraph I was asking his opinion on. So no, until he proves to me that he can educate himself, and argue Constitutional law at a level higher than my 16 year old. I'll have these conversations with you.

I like discussing Constitutional stuff, but I expect the ones I am discussing with, to at least familiarize themselves with the topic before putting forth an opinion.

Sniperchoke · Jan 14, 2011

I don't know how many times I have to explain this. In my original posted I said Quote"My views for one are right in line with our Founding Fathers , our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights." By including the BILL OF RIGHTS the 13 amendment supercedes and thus makes moot the 3/5's portion of the Constitution. So Outcaster's question had been addressed before it was asked. I simply jumped the gun in thinking he was referring to the WELFARE clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. When you are arguing the Constitutionality of Gov't Charity that is the classic liberal defense and has been used often on this site. So now Outcaster thinks im ignorant because I made an oversight. That's fine I could really care less. I will say again that at least I know that there are 50 states in the Union unlike President Obamas idea of 57. Outcaster is simply scared and doesn't have a good answer to my original question. So he will continue to dodge it any way he can.

outcaster · Jan 14, 2011

How could you have possibly answered my direct question before I even asked it? Can you see into the future? I'll answer your enumeration of powers question in the same manner and thoughtfulness that you answered mine.... by saying that I am really glad the 18th Amendment was repealed... I like to have a shot of Scotch now and again.

Sniperchoke · Jan 14, 2011

outcaster - 1/14/2011 8:43 PM

How could you have possibly answered my direct question before I even asked it?

Because your question was irrelevant by my inclusion of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

outcaster · Jan 14, 2011

Sniperchoke - 1/14/2011 9:51 PM

outcaster - 1/14/2011 8:43 PM

How could you have possibly answered my direct question before I even asked it?

Click to expand...

Because your question was irrelevant by my inclusion of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Is that like a Christian saying that He's just a sinner "Saved by Grace"?
Can I hire you to be my attorney?

How does a generic statement about liking the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights even begin to address particular aspects of Constitutional law? And you want me to explain to you my views on other complex topics. Ok, here goes.... I really like the Constitution. I love the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin is my favorite, The Amendments are great! Does that cover it for you? Why do we need lawyers, judges, and courts? Get back to me with at least an internet education, then we'll discuss any topic you want.

AThornton · Jan 14, 2011

Yall figured out who's dick is bigger yet?

:emoticon:

outcaster · Jan 14, 2011

I don't know.... But I must have balls the size of grapefruits to get in here with this bunch. hehehehehehheh

EricM · Jan 14, 2011

XLDVee - 1/14/2011 9:09 PM

Yall figured out who's dick is bigger yet?

I promise you, it surely ain't mine!!! emoDoh emoDoh

AThornton · Jan 14, 2011

emoUpsmile

SpurHunter · Jan 14, 2011

XLDVee - 1/14/2011 9:09 PM Yall figured out who's dick is bigger yet? :emoticon:

Well, Im screwed..........

Couldn't Vote Her Out... But wait! I still have options.

Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Guest

Well-known member

Guest

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads