Will Alabama Uphold Segregation?

[Timshel]

Fuck you are thick! The state constitution says that it is NOT a constitutional right. The 2004 measure sought to REPEAL that, which would have MADE it a constitutional right. The very argument and basis for the segregationist language was rooted in the premise that it was NOT a constitutional right, therefore, not a constitutional issue under the federal desegregation law. Of course, the SCOTUS felt otherwise, and rendered the language null and void, but the 'non-constitutional right' portion remained in effect. It has been that way ever since. Public education in Alabama is not a constitutional right. Racial equality in schools, IS a constitutional right, the SCOTUS ruled on that.

As for the tax increase, yes... originally when I posted on this, I distilled the context down to the basics and didn't explicitly explain the entire technical aspects, but gave a generalized claim that it "raised taxes" and it doesn't actually "raise taxes" per say. You got me! BRAVO FOR YOU! GIVE YOURSELF A COOKIE, RETARD! The point still remains, that the proposition would have removed not only the segregationist language, but also the provision against constitutionality, which in turn, would have given the state legislature the authority to implement a school tax. Ergo: It would have raised taxes! AGAIN... In Alabama, the constitution stipulates (within the segregationist language) that public education is not a constitutional right. The 2004 proposal, as you have been shown (underlined above in big fucking letters) would have REPEALED that aspect when the segregation language was removed. The 2012 measure repeals the segregationist language, but adds the detail that would necessarily be removed with the segregationist language, declaring that public education is not a constitutional right. Which is what the current constitution states, it just does so with offensive segregationist language.

If the ISSUE is the segregationist language, it should be NO PROBLEM, because the 2012 measure removes that aspect, and only replaces the part dealing with constitutionality of education. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE! In 2004, it was CLAIMED to be about the language, but it was REALLY an attempt to constitutionalize the right to education, so the state could implement a school tax. We're seeing the proof of that now, because the same people who screamed and hollered about the offensive racist segregation language in 2004, are OPPOSED to removing it now. Their ISSUE back then, was to alter the constitution so they could effectively implement a school tax constitutionally, and it FAILED!


Again.. from the text of the 2004 proposition: "repeal portions of Amendment 111 concerning constitutional construction against the right to education." I know that is a complex sentence that you seem to be having trouble comprehending, but it clearly says the measure would repeal the constitutional construct against the "right to education." Meaning it would then be constitutional to implement a school tax at the state level, since it would no longer be specified as unconstitutional in the constitution. Are you following this pinhead? OR do I need to repeat it a few more times in different ways before your retarded brain gets it?

You are a liar!

Our federal constitution does not state that education is not a right and that does not mean that it is a right. Repealing that part would not have made it a right nor would it have made it any more possible to pass a tax. That was just a lie used by racist to oppose the amendment just like you found another lie to oppose the 2012 amendment.

I have been right all along. It's weird that I would have to school you on what is going on in the state you supposedly live in. Well, it would be weird except we now know you are lying about that. It's kind of like when you told everyone you went to Iraq.

It is quite comical to watch you pretend that you did not just make a complete ass out of yourself, AGAIN. I don't know you do it.

But I look forward to making a fool of you for a long time to come.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I've already told you I oppose ALL amendments to Alabama's constitution, it has over 800 already. I don't need any more reason than that. And yes, it would have made it constitutional to levy a school tax through state legislature, if the language had been removed in 2004. It says so in the very proposition from 2004, which YOU posted. I'm sorry you are too illiterate to comprehend the complex language of the proposal, but that IS what it said and what it would have done, and that's why it failed.

It is also a fact that the very same people who pushed the 2004 proposition, are opposed to the 2012 proposition. They object to the inclusion of a stipulation reaffirming that public education is not a constitutional right. So we'll continue to keep the segregation-era language and the constitution will continue to say that public education is not a constitutional right, and Alabama will not have a school tax imposed by the state legislature. You can bow up and call us racists and hurl insults now, I don't really care, I wasn't going to support another amendment of any kind, any way. The lies and distortion didn't work in 2004, and probably won't work in 2012. We'll see... but if the 2012 measure passes, it will solidify the principle in the constitution and prohibit a statewide school tax for good. I could live with that, I won't vote for it, but I could live with it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Our federal constitution does not state that education is not a right and that does not mean that it is a right.

LMAO... What does the federal constitution say about powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government, dipshit?

 

[Timshel]

I've already told you I oppose ALL amendments to Alabama's constitution, it has over 800 already. I don't need any more reason than that. And yes, it would have made it constitutional to levy a school tax through state legislature, if the language had been removed in 2004. It says so in the very proposition from 2004, which YOU posted. I'm sorry you are too illiterate to comprehend the complex language of the proposal, but that IS what it said and what it would have done, and that's why it failed.

It is also a fact that the very same people who pushed the 2004 proposition, are opposed to the 2012 proposition. They object to the inclusion of a stipulation reaffirming that public education is not a constitutional right. So we'll continue to keep the segregation-era language and the constitution will continue to say that public education is not a constitutional right, and Alabama will not have a school tax imposed by the state legislature. You can bow up and call us racists and hurl insults now, I don't really care, I wasn't going to support another amendment of any kind, any way. The lies and distortion didn't work in 2004, and probably won't work in 2012. We'll see... but if the 2012 measure passes, it will solidify the principle in the constitution and prohibit a statewide school tax for good. I could live with that, I won't vote for it, but I could live with it.

It did not say anything about a tax, liar. There was no complex language in the proposal. It deleted text. What you are focusing on is the synopsis describing the deleted text. God, you are a moron.

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... What does the federal constitution say about rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government, dipshit?

There are no rights enumerated to the federal government.

It does not say that you have a constitutional right to have those things not denied, provided for by an expenditure of government.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Doesn't have to say anything about a tax, we've covered this already.
And YES, the 2004 proposition deleted text that maintained education wasn't a constitutional right. That was the problem.

Constitution 101: Powers not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution are reserved to whom? The state and the people "respectively" ....if the state doesn't establish the right is not constitutional, the people (read: legislative representatives) can make that determination. The lack of a provision in the state constitution, saying it is not constitutional, leaves it open for the people to decide, and the people elect their state legislature to do that.

Go back and read what I posted earlier about the history of this deal. I'm not lying to you, I have no reason to lie about this. The Democrats didn't want to slash the budget back in 2000, when Gov. Riley proposed it, and after Riley then proposed a massive state tax increase and it failed to pass, they came up with this idea of enacting a school tax to pay for state education, instead of paying for it out of the state budget like they had been doing for years in Alabama. This has ALWAYS been about finagling a school tax at the state level, which the constitution doesn't allow. It's STILL all about that, which is why the same people who supported the proposition in 2004, are now opposed to the very same proposition. The only difference in 2004 and 2012, is the matter of constitutionality regarding the right to education. There is no other difference.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There are no rights enumerated to the federal government.

It does not say that you have a constitutional right to have those things not denied, provided for by an expenditure of government.

I'm sorry, my mistake... POWERS... not rights.

 

[Timshel]

Doesn't have to say anything about a tax, we've covered this already.
And YES, the 2004 proposition deleted text that maintained education wasn't a constitutional right. That was the problem.

Constitution 101: Powers not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution are reserved to whom? The state and the people "respectively" ....if the state doesn't establish the right is not constitutional, the people (read: legislative representatives) can make that determination. The lack of a provision in the state constitution, saying it is not constitutional, leaves it open for the people to decide, and the people elect their state legislature to do that.

Go back and read what I posted earlier about the history of this deal. I'm not lying to you, I have no reason to lie about this. The Democrats didn't want to slash the budget back in 2000, when Gov. Riley proposed it, and after Riley then proposed a massive state tax increase and it failed to pass, they came up with this idea of enacting a school tax to pay for state education, instead of paying for it out of the state budget like they had been doing for years in Alabama. This has ALWAYS been about finagling a school tax at the state level, which the constitution doesn't allow. It's STILL all about that, which is why the same people who supported the proposition in 2004, are now opposed to the very same proposition. The only difference in 2004 and 2012, is the matter of constitutionality regarding the right to education. There is no other difference.

You are conflating the 9th and the 10th.

You are nothing but a liar. It would not have granted any right, created any tax or made it any more possible to pass a tax.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then why are the proponents of the 2004 proposition the opponents of the 2012 proposition?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Then why are the proponents of the 2004 proposition the opponents of the 2012 proposition?

Why aren't you asking them?

Don't you live in Alabama?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I'm sorry, my mistake... POWERS... not rights.

Another mistake you'll claim to have corrected before you announce you were right all along?

 

[Timshel]

Then why are the proponents of the 2004 proposition the opponents of the 2012 proposition?

Been over that.... Because it does not remove all of the language added by amendment 111 to thwart desegregation and they see it as an attempt to gain a reaffirmation of part of the language.

Why don't you know this? I read one article and I have to explain this to you? Aren't you a proud member of some movement there?

The entire section has no force of law. It does not do anything. If you really supported cleaning that racist rag you should support either amendment.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Aren't you a proud member of some movement there?

Hmmm.

This one?

 

[Timshel]

Another mistake you'll claim to have corrected before you announce you were right all along?

He still botched it in #146.

Constitution 101: Powers not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution are reserved to whom? The state and the people "respectively" ....if the state doesn't establish the right is not constitutional, the people (read: legislative representatives) can make that determination.

He is confusing rights and powers, enumerated and delegated, the 9th and the 10th.

The 9th simply sought to make sure that common law rights were not ignored and to clarify the fact that just because a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist. That does not mean it does exist.

The 10th was intended to limit the federal government to the powers delegated under he constitution.

Ditzy makes such a huge mess of things that he we'll usually try to wiggle out on one line of error or another until you get tired of correcting him. You correct him on one error he will run to another and back and forth. He is really very very stupid.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Ditzy makes such a huge mess of things that he we'll usually try to wiggle out on one line of error or another until you get tired of correcting him. You correct him on one error he will run to another and back and forth. He is really very very stupid.

He's the Prince of Dense.