Reading is not your strongpoint, is it?I'm not so sure about that. The SCOTUS refused to even hear about the unconstitutional voting changes in Pennsylvania. And they did not rule against Obamacare in a case with all 7 seated.
Dominion voting machines in Texas had nothing to do with any "law" that was passed and the SCOTUS didn't even get involved in that, so not sure what that has to do with it.
Roberts is a liberal and I don't think we know for sure about the others yet.
If they're going to cheat their way in anyways, what does it matter?
What else are we getting demands to "compromise" on. If we are talking about building only 1 new aircraft carrier or 5 of them, I have no objection to building 2 or 3 and calling it a day, but that simply isn't where the argument is.I didn’t say anything about compromising on the constitution at all. No specifics what so ever. I agree with your sentiments on the constitution.
My concern with voting is that we have reached the point where I could do as much good walking outside and yelling as loud as I can as casting a legal and proper ballot.Relative to private ownership of firearms by the general public you have to ask yourself how much of leadership at any level believes in this. By that I mean not just pay lip service to it so they can get elected, but really believe in it. I'm betting very, very, few, and it's probably been that way, with few exceptions, since we have had civilization and weapons.
To me it's a litmus test in an election, don't support it and you don't get my vote. Many times I don't get the choice I want as I haven't seen anybody like TR running for office here in Indiana so I have to chose the lesser of two evils, but I always vote.
That might get through in Texas but not in a lot of other red states including Indiana. I agree with you philosophically but just don't see it happening.I disagree. If the states with supposedly conservative legislatures would pass iron clad voting laws( no mail in ballots other than absentee ballots) voter ID, no ballot harvesting, no voting machines, etc. then there is a chance.
Everything you said is true but the bigger problem is that constitutional rights by their very nature are not subject to compromise. They are hard and fast inviolable guarantees.True compromise is mutual give and take on both sides that ends up benefiting both sides.
No, law abiding gun owners have been giving and not getting anything in return. No mutual give and take has ever happened.
The word compromise has been used against gun owners to make them feel guilty and give up more, and then more, and then even more. At some point, there will be nothing left to take, because we will have given in to point of being defenseless.
Sadly, many of our so-called 2nd Amendment defenders, are either helping the other side in "compromising" our gun rights away, or woefully underfunded to fight the battles we need fought in defense of our gun rights.
For many years, the anti-gun liberals have used the terms, safety, crime, and other catch buzzwords to appeal to the masses of why we gun owners need to give up even more of our gun rights to help further their deceptive agenda. It was merely subterfuge for many years, but just recently, we have seen and heard for ourselves exactly why they want more gun control and what measures they are willing to use to gain what they want, which is gun owners being disarmed and defenseless.
AND... If we don't figure out a way to make safe, secure, honest elections happen at the state level there is no real recourse. There is no return to sanity. There is civil war which, if successful, simply re-empowers "We the People" to have just, fair, honest elections.That might get through in Texas but not in a lot of other red states including Indiana. I agree with you philosophically but just don't see it happening.
Everything you said is true but the bigger problem is that constitutional rights by their very nature are not subject to compromise. They are hard and fast inviolable guarantees.
Exactly what I see happening.AND... If we don't figure out a way to make safe, secure, honest elections happen at the state level there is no real recourse. There is no return to sanity. There is civil war which, if successful, simply re-empowers "We the People" to have just, fair, honest elections.
What else are we getting demands to "compromise" on. If we are talking about building only 1 new aircraft carrier or 5 of them, I have no objection to building 2 or 3 and calling it a day, but that simply isn't where the argument is.
Hell, I’ve wondered if Crenshaw would be a good swap for Cruz but I’m afraid he’s just like the rest of em.
Everything you said is true but the bigger problem is that constitutional rights by their very nature are not subject to compromise. They are hard and fast inviolable guarantees.
Has anyone else gotten the letter from the republicans begging for more money? I got one and it didn't say do not reply so I did. Told them they will be getting no more from me. Evidently, they are nonbelievers, because I got another today. Junk bin!
I wish we’d do away with all political parties completely.
You cut to the heart of the problem: the swamp DOES NOT follow the law, and ignoring the constitution does not make doing so legal, yet it routinely happens. Problem needs solved.If that were true, then laws pertaining to Constitutional Amendments would exist in the first place, but they do.
Case in point, many people like to point to some of our federal gun laws being an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, and in some ways I agree, but also disagree with some of them. Laws are suppose to reflect what we as society deems is acceptable behavior and provide for punishment for breaking them.
Now if we are going by the assumption or belief that amendments are hard and fast, and in no way subject to compromise, and any laws pertaining to them are an infringement, then let me ask you a question. What are your thoughts on pornography? What about laws pertaining to child pornography specifically? Reason I point this out, is because people that participate in such, can claim those laws are an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights, and before laws existed pertaining to both, they were legal. How about slander and libel? If laws didn't exist for those as well, they would be protected under the 1st Amendment.
Constitutional Amendments should never be compromised at their very core values and premise ever, but they still have to be fluid, and adaptable to changing times.