• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 15TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S RACE, HIS COLOR, OR IF HE WAS A FORMER SLAVE

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!



AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 19TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S SEX.

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!



AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 26TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S AGE.

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!

so? How does printing the language of those Amendments negate the reality that those Amendments effectively extended the right to vote for those persons?
 
again this is correct..the constitution is about the separations of powers, and what powers will be delegated to the federal government.....again the constitution is about powers.

the body of the constitution of 1788...delegates powers to the federal government, and creates the structure of the federal government.

the bill of rights lays restrictions on the federal government, not to makes laws which infringe on recognized rights of the people.

further amendments grant congress powers to write legislation...pertaining to voting/privileges/rights among other things.

again, the law of the constitution cannot be used on a Citizen of the u.s.......federal law is used on Citizens.

Voting is a RIGHT - not a privilege and we know that because the Constitution lists it five different times in five different sections and a RIGHT. So stop already with the word privileges as it is completely incorrect.

If the Constitution or state constitutions cannot create rights for people - who then does? And skip the BS about gods in the sky or nature sweeping up rights like leaves blowing in the wind or other fairy tales of the gullible and naive.

You keep trying to increasingly narrow what we are talking about. From the Constitution does not apply to people to constitutional law does not apply to people to the constitution gives no right to people to nobody can be prosecuted for violating the Constitution to now its about powers.

Whats next? :roll:
 
so? How does printing the language of those Amendments negate the reality that those Amendments effectively extended the right to vote for those persons?

because states were denying people the vote, the amendment GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER, to create federal law to prevent states from denying people the vote.

voting comes out of state constitutions...because the federal constitution has the power of voting in ......state hands..

Article. I.

Section. 2.

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.

voting was a privilege , and the states had Qualifications requisite in order for people to vote.

all privileges which are granted by a government must be granted equally to all people if they meet the Qualifications requisite....but states were writing laws to keep blacks /women out of voting.

the USSC took voting out of state constitutions and recognized it as a right of the people, and no one can be denied the vote by law because of race-color-sex--age
 
because states were denying people the vote, the amendment GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER, to create federal law to prevent states from denying people the vote.

voting comes out of state constitutions...because the federal constitution has the power of voting in ......state hands..

Article. I.

Section. 2.

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.

voting was a privilege , and the states had Qualifications requisite in order for people to vote.

all privileges which are granted by a government must be granted equally to all people if they meet the Qualifications requisite....but states were writing laws to keep blacks /women out of voting.

the USSC took voting out of state constitutions and recognized it as a right of the people, and no one can be denied the vote by law because of race-color-sex--age

Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that the Amendments discussed effectively expanded the vote to the groups mentioned.
Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that voting in the USA is a RIGHT under the US Constitution and we know this because it is specifically mentioned at least five times in five different parts of the Constitution.
 
Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that the Amendments discussed effectively expanded the vote to the groups mentioned.
Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that voting in the USA is a RIGHT under the US Constitution and we know this because it is specifically mentioned at least five times in five different parts of the Constitution.

expanded...i guess you could use that term...

but none on the amendments grant any rights..just like the bill of rights does not grant any.

voting was a privilege in the beginning of america..that is FACT....the USSC....recognized a right to vote.

none of the amendments make a grant of a right...but a grant of power to the federal government


The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
expanded...i guess you could use that term...

but none on the amendments grant any rights..just like the bill of rights does not grant any.

voting was a privilege in the beginning of america..that is FACT....the USSC....recognized a right to vote.

none of the amendments make a grant of a right...but a grant of power to the federal government


The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Glad you agree on EXPANDED because when you do NOT have a right and the rights others have are EXPANDED to you, you then have been granted a right through that EXPANSION. So we are hopefully getting somewhere.

The US Constitution recognizes VOTING as a RIGHT. We know this because it says so at least five different times in at least five different places.

If you still maintain that none of the Amendments grant any rights - how do you then explain the rights listed specifically in the Sixth Amendment for just one example?

The reality is that the Amendments on voting effectively gave the right to vote to the groups being discussed in them. That is simple reality.

I suspect this discussion is again an example of the huge disconnect between reality and what libertarians believe in their dissociative state in an attempt to preserve their belief system so them simply deny reality. Von Mises did this and far too many libertarians - are guilty of at least exhibiting the signs of the same mental disorder that plagued Von Mises.
 
Glad you agree on EXPANDED because when you do NOT have a right and the rights others have are EXPANDED to you, you then have been granted a right through that EXPANSION. So we are hopefully getting somewhere.

The US Constitution recognizes VOTING as a RIGHT. We know this because it says so at least five different times in at least five different places.

If you still maintain that none of the Amendments grant any rights - how do you then explain the rights listed specifically in the Sixth Amendment for just one example?

The reality is that the Amendments on voting effectively gave the right to vote to the groups being discussed in them. That is simple reality.

I suspect this discussion is again an example of the huge disconnect between reality and what libertarians believe in their dissociative state in an attempt to preserve their belief system so them simply deny reality. Von Mises did this and far too many libertarians - are guilty of at least exhibiting the signs of the same mental disorder that plagued Von Mises.


rights can be recognized by the constitution or the USSC, but are not created by law.

the right to privacy does not exist in the constitution, no where is it written , no where is it created by law of congress.

the USSC recognized the right to privacy, ...which is unwritten law...its a negative right.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law
 
Last edited:
Victory! Federal Court Recognizes Constitutional Rights of Americans on the No-Fly List
ACLU!
https://www.aclu.org/blog/victory-f...s-constitutional-rights-americans-no-fly-list [/QUOTE]

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ

U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, SAYS HUMANIST GROUP

U.S. Supreme Court Must Recognize Marriage Rights of Same-Sex Couples, Says Humanist Group

the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as "Fundamental"HSLDA | National Center Special Report[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
rights can be recognized by the constitution or the USSC, but are not created by law.

the right to privacy does not exist in the constitution, no where is it written , no where is it created by law of congress.

the USSC recognized the right to privacy, ...which is unwritten law...its a negative right.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

Again the disconnect between belief and reality on the part of the right libertarian. In point of fact you cannot tell me where these rights were to be found before they were placed in constitutions. Its a mental disconnect between reality and what you want to believe because you believe it as it fits into your adopted extremist ideology of right libertarianism.
 
Not one thing you have said today or lately changes the reality that the Amendments we discussed effectively gave the right to vote to the people discussed in them.
 
1064625670 said:
Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ

U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, SAYS HUMANIST GROUP

U.S. Supreme Court Must Recognize Marriage Rights of Same-Sex Couples, Says Humanist Group

the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as "Fundamental"HSLDA | National Center Special Report
[/QUOTE]

Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that the Amendments discussed effectively expanded the vote to the groups mentioned.

Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that voting in the USA is a RIGHT under the US Constitution and we know this because it is specifically mentioned at least five times in five different parts of the Constitution.
 
Again the disconnect between belief and reality on the part of the right libertarian. In point of fact you cannot tell me where these rights were to be found before they were placed in constitutions. Its a mental disconnect between reality and what you want to believe because you believe it as it fits into your adopted extremist ideology of right libertarianism.

IN OTHER WORDS .......I PROVIDE PROOF, AND YOU PROVIDE NOTHING......BUT YOUR OWN WORDS......

BUT TO GIVE YOU A .............BIG BOOM !

here is your favorite source of information which you claim is correct......wikipedia

Fundamental rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that the Amendments discussed effectively expanded the vote to the groups mentioned.

Not one thing you claim in that post changes the reality that voting in the USA is a RIGHT under the US Constitution and we know this because it is specifically mentioned at least five times in five different parts of the Constitution.

:lamo...in other words you have nothing to post.
 
IN OTHER WORDS .......I PROVIDE PROOF, AND YOU PROVIDE NOTHING......BUT YOUR OWN WORDS.......

You were provided with the US Constitution.

In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court can recognize the existence of a god or God or GOD. That does NOT make for verifiable evidence of the existence of a god outside of anything but belief. The same goes for the belief in natural rights.
 
:lamo...in other words you have nothing to post.

You calling the evidence I presented NOTHING is a perfect example of the self imposed dissociative disorder I have discussed in the past designed to protect your right libertarian extremist beliefs in the face of reality. You deny my posts have evidence and in turn are permitted to deny reality. Its a dog chasing its tail and getting nowhere.

http://accredited-times.com/2013/08/08/352/

In May of this year, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychiatric Association. This near-comprehensive set of diagnostic criteria is just another example of the progress which government-funded medical research has made in recent years. Many hurdles remain, however, and psychiatric professionals are discovering new personality disorders and previously unknown mental dysfunctions on a near-daily basis. With that in mind, I offer the two following observations:


1: Psychosis is defined by experts as a mental state involving a “loss of contact with reality.” (1)

2: Ludwig von Mises, a cult figure among Right-wing extremists and described by many as the “Paul Krugman of Libertarianism”, once offered the following bizarre statement in defense of his repugnant ideology:

“Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts.” (2)

The consensus amongst professional Economists today is that this statement is merely another glaring example of the shoddy circular logic and solipsistic reasoning for which extreme right-wing “thinkers” are notorious. Could it be, however, that an altogether more tragic story lies behind the creation of Ludwig von Mises’ hate-filled works? Perhaps history may judge the man more kindly if the sociopathic nature of his “philosophy” can one day be ascribed to mental ill health rather than wilful malice.

Whilst it is undeniable that the “Libertarian” movement exhibits continuous atavistic spasms of illogicality and delusion, the majority of individuals aligned with the “Libertarian” and Conspiracy movements are not, of course, mentally ill. Most are simply malcontents; socially inept individuals who, suffering from boredom as a result of the record amounts of leisure time afforded by recent improvements in the economy, engage in anonymous confrontational thrill-seeking online. Many are only semi-literate and, having perhaps read Ayn Rand, but not von Mises or Rothbard, merely parrot slogans and catchphrases which they have learned by rote from darkly charismatic leaders within the cult-like environs of shady online message boards.
 
Last edited:
You were provided with the US Constitution.



The US Supreme Court can recognize the existence of a god or God or GOD. That does NOT make for verifiable evidence of the existence of a god outside of anything but belief. The same goes for the belief in natural rights.

again you provide nothing to back up your case.

where are rights granted.......?

the constitution states powers are granted, where does it says rights are granted.
 
You calling the evidence I presented NOTHING is a perfect example of the self imposed dissociative disorder I have discussed in the past designed to protect your right libertarian extremist beliefs in the face of reality. You deny my posts have evidence and in turn are permitted to deny reality. Its a dog chasing its tail and getting nowhere.

Accredited Times | Of Mises and Madmen: Is Libertarianism a Mental Illness?

:lamo:mrgreen:..when all else fails by you... dodge the subject

OF MISES AND MADMEN: IS LIBERTARIANISM A MENTAL ILLNESS?<-------------:lamo

you didn't even address your favorite source of information.

if this is not the most deflective post i have ever seen
 
Last edited:
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 15TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S RACE, HIS COLOR, OR IF HE WAS A FORMER SLAVE

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!



AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 19TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S SEX.

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!



AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

THE 26TH AMENDMENT STATES THAT CONGRESS IS GRANTED THE POWER TO WRITE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO PROHIBIT THE ABRIDGEMENT OF VOTING BY THE U.S. OR ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF A PERSON'S AGE.

SO THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS GOVERNMENTS FROM DENYING PEOPLE A VOTE....ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON WHICH ARE LISTED.........IT DOES NOT GRANT A VOTE!

"Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote." Our Documents - 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920)
 
:lamo:mrgreen:..when all else fails by you... dodge the subject

OF MISES AND MADMEN: IS LIBERTARIANISM A MENTAL ILLNESS?<-------------:lamo

you didn't even address your favorite source of information.

if this is not the most deflective post i have ever seen

There is nothing defective other than you not recognizing the evidence I presented and trying to perpetrate a fraud in saying it is not there in the first place.

Your intentional rejection of the Constitutional and historical evidence I have presented shows that the reference to Mises and his mental disorder that some libertarians mimic is perfectly applicable.
 
"Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote." Our Documents - 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920)

wrong.........all three amendments grant a power to congress to write federal legislation,prohibit, the u.s. or states from denying the vote..because of race-color- sex- age.

here is the power in each amendment:

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
again you provide nothing to back up your case.

Calling the US constitution NOTHING is delusional.

Calling historical examples of the vote NOTHING is delusional.

Calling the Sixth Amendment NOTHING is delusional.
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

absolutely!!!!! we have a constitution which guarantees texas the right to seceed, or any other state. As a sworn defender of the constitution of the united snakes i must support texas' right to seceed.
 
There is nothing defective other than you not recognizing the evidence I presented and trying to perpetrate a fraud in saying it is not there in the first place.

Your intentional rejection of the Constitutional and historical evidence I have presented shows that the reference to Mises and his mental disorder that some libertarians mimic is perfectly applicable.
:lamo

for you to bring libertarianism into the conversation is a complete deflection because you have nothing to put forth, ..you cant produce anything......:lamo..its a riot:mrgreen:
 
wrong.........all three amendments grant a power to congress to write federal legislation,prohibit, the u.s. or states from denying the vote..because of race-color- sex- age.

here is the power in each clause:

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Wrong you say? Perhaps you should complain then to this site (where I copied and pasted the sentence from)

Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

It is a official website it even has the .gov thing going. So should listen to some guy on the internet or a official government website?
 
Back
Top Bottom