evince
Truthmatters
your proof of your claims foreskin lips
fake news by russia effected the election
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
your proof of your claims foreskin lips
evince
Truthmatters
who is this WE you are speaking of
Indeed......by acquiring a 75% supermajority ratification of a state represented AMENDMENT OR......by convention of the states. Luck with getting 75% of the states to agree with your projected socialist changes. The only way a truly free republic can remain free is by allowing THE MAJORITY of its citizens to enact the rule of law. All the civil liberties that exist in this nation have been GRANTED by decree.....from THE MAJORITY in both common law and constitutional ratification. In fact it surprised the hell out you in your projected Hillary landslide (which I laughed my ass off
....when you continually parroted the PROPAGANDA).....when the "silent majority" of the STATES elected Mr. Trump in order to put and end to your type of failed IDEAS.Simply show us the existence of the left wing terms Tyranny of the Majority......Social Justice....etc., in the CONSTITUTION....show us where THE PEOPLE changed the constitution to include those terms.....you cannot because THE PEOPLE never authorized such changes. When the constitution is attempted to be changed by the COURT void of representation.....its unconstitutional as hell.
Just how ignorant are you?
Last edited:
I don't think anything Obama could have done would have stopped Putin from meddling.
evince
Truthmatters
Indeed......by acquiring a 75% supermajority ratification of a state represented AMENDMENT OR......by convention of the states. Luck with getting 75% of the states to agree with your projected socialist changes. The only way a truly free republic can remain free is by allowing THE MAJORITY of its citizens to enact the rule of law. All the civil liberties that exist in this nation have been GRANTED by decree.....from THE MAJORITY in both common law and constitutional ratification. In fact it surprised the hell out you in your projected Hillary landslide (which I laughed my ass off
Simply show us the existence of the left wing terms Tyranny of the Majority......Social Justice....etc., in the CONSTITUTION....show us where THE PEOPLE changed the constitution to include those terms.....you cannot because THE PEOPLE never authorized such changes. When the constitution is attempted to be changed by the COURT void of representation.....its unconstitutional as hell.
Just how ignorant are you?
which is why your republican party has CHEATED to keep the PEOPLE from being truly represented huh
I don't think "tyranny of the majority" is a left-wing term. It was used by James Madison in Federalist #10 when explaining why the Constitution was written to prevent the majority (or any other faction) from imposing its will on others. That is why they opposed democracy; because, by definition, the majority always wins.
Link...please, demonstrate just how the republican party has cheated in order to obstruct an up or down vote on Amending the Constitution.....or stopping a Constitutional convention? Congress does not have the authority to amend the US CONSTITUTION via the use of ratifying COMMON LAW. Common law requires only a simple majority up or down vote....and can be ratified only if it stays in compliance with the restrictions found in the CONSTITUTION, as that is actually why the states INVENTED the contract among themselves known as the US Constitution....to limit the power and scope of the Central Government in pointing to certain things the central government can't do via common Federal Law. The US CONSTITUTION is a negative document, it does not bestow rights.....IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS of all free men/women as established by the majority of the STATES/PEOPLE.
Why did it not protect against slavery? The original statement found in the founding documents that states ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL was just as true during the foundation of this nation as it is today...TRUTH DOES NOT EVOLVE....but societies can evolve its projected morality that is projected into law. Slavery existed in this republic because THE MAJORITY wanted it to exist....its existed in both the north and the south...., but when the majority of society was ready to evolve....the constitution was amended by the super majority of the people in this nation to reflect slavery as being immoral. In a Free Republic where the majority makes all law, either common law by a simple +1 majority or by Constitutional super majority restraint against common law....THE MAJORITY allowed all the forms of civil liberties that exist today. Not one civil liberty could exist void of a Majority allowance ..... not one.
Don't believe me? Allow Brother Man, the community organizer to explain. Brotherman seems to think that the Constitution is "Imperfect" because it does not allow evolution by common law, he claimd it was outdated and antiquated when he addressed the United Nations
https://www.youtube.com/?v=JxYDnYgQ5MQ
https://www.youtube.com/?v=XT5V_nhQWo0
Concluded Truth? The US CONSTITUTION is the only thing today that protects the Republic known as the United States of America....from....socialists like you who preach that the minority can establish their idea of morality against the majorities wishes. When the minority, is allowed to run over the Majority Will....you are no longer living in a FREE SOCIETY...you are living in despotism.
Last edited:
I am not sure when he knew. But he did put in sanctions before he left. He warned Hillary and Daffy Donald about it. Trump already knew. Trump is against sanctions. The senate passed them at 98 to 2 vote. trump did not put them in. Trump is a Russian businessman. He wants his money.
evince
Truthmatters
because it has yet to be investigated
It that so, racist?
You mean federalist No. 10 where Madison is explaining why Article 4 Section 4, clause 1 exists in the US CONSTITUTION that guarantees a Republican Government at all levels, while he is explaining why the Constitution was based upon Republicanism instead of social democracy...i.e., mob rule which is incompatible with personal freedoms, liberty, and the right to own property? That Federalist No. 10?
Conclusion: The tyrants mentioned had nothing to do with denying the majority anything.....it had to do with denying any type of MOB the legal process to deny the guaranteed rights of a Republican Government as compared to a pure democracy which have always historically failed. There is no tyranny of the majority mentioned anywhere in the US CONSTITUTION and following STATES BILL OF RIGHTS and AMENDMENTS. Madison would be the first to jump from his grave and beat you over the head with that truth if he had but witnessed how the US has became corrupted by such idiocy in suggesting that the US is a democracy.
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
bring us the investigation that proved no votes were effected
I didn't make the claim, racist.
evince
Truthmatters
then fuck off
I mean the Federalist #10 that answers the question what is the best type of government to control factions. He chooses a republic instead of a democracy because in a democracy the majority always wins and imposes its view on others. A majority faction is as evil as any lesser faction. He even argues that our elected representatives should base their decisions on the best interests of the nation and not the wishes of constituents because that is just another form of majority rule.
The MOB you mention is the majority.
I haven't read it lately but I do not remember any discussion of Article IV. Perhaps you could copy and paste a few sentences.
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order (12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion (12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief (02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision (11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (11/01/2004)
Malone Order (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (11/01/1982)
Complaint (02/11/1982)
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order (12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion (12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief (02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision (11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (11/01/2004)
Malone Order (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (11/01/1982)
Complaint (02/11/1982)
In Michigan, we had a ballot proposal that would eliminate the Emergency Managers. It carried, ending them. Within a month, the Repubs reinstated them and had a provision so it was not allowed on the ballot again. That is how much the Repubs care about the vote and the will of the people. That is the Repub attitude.