• 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!

'Impeach Maxine Waters' street art appears in Inglewood...

notquiteright said:
You show you refuse to accept what you have posted- the right to vote is protected by the 4th amendment (FYI amendments are part of the Constitution :roll: )

The right to vote is referenced in the many amendments I cited.

I realize some must have everything spelled out in very simple terms but the rest of us can see the many references to the right as well as Supreme Court rulings CITING THE CONSTITUTION enshrining a right to vote... :peace
Click to expand...

:lamo, there is not right to vote, CONGRESS and the states cannot create a right.

rights are recognized by the constitution or by the USSC, the court has recognized voting it as a "liberty issue".

voting is privilege, its not a right, you are proof that we have people in America living under our constitution who do not understand it

the amendments you posted are about powers of federal government, you need to read them, they don't grant people anything
 
Last edited:
Is there any actual evidence that Waters constituents are unhappy with her and are trying to remove her?

This sounds like a right wing stunt that is loved and adored by other right wingers who hate Waters for her vocal opposition to their idol Trump.
 
TurtleDude said:
nice obfuscation-the fact is that Maxine the Moron waters brayed about how the near fatal beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny was justified. Her constituents include large numbers of criminals, white hating racists, and public teat suckers
Click to expand...

I am dismayed to see you make such a vicious, unjustified attack on one of the leading intellectual lights of the Democratic Party. Ms. Waters ranks right there at the top, along with Speaker Pelosi, Vice-President Biden, and the pride of the University of Virginia Law School, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. We native Californians have for years been proud to have Ms. Waters honoring our fair state, together with two other magnificent members of Congress, Barbara "Call me Senator" Boxer and Dianne "Confiscate All Guns" Feinstein.
 
notquiteright said:
You show you refuse to accept what you have posted- the right to vote is protected by the 4th amendment (FYI amendments are part of the Constitution :roll: )

The right to vote is referenced in the many amendments I cited.

I realize some must have everything spelled out in very simple terms but the rest of us can see the many references to the right as well as Supreme Court rulings CITING THE CONSTITUTION enshrining a right to vote... :peace
Click to expand...

It is either ironic or sickening or laughable that so many on the far right wing wallow in the self imposed delusion that there is no right to vote when it is mentioned at least five different times in no less than five different parts of the US Constitution. Their personal favorite of the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned but once by comparison.
 
matchlight said:
I am dismayed to see you make such a vicious, unjustified attack on one of the leading intellectual lights of the Democratic Party. Ms. Waters ranks right there at the top, along with Speaker Pelosi, Vice-President Biden, and the pride of the University of Virginia Law School, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. We native Californians have for years been proud to have Ms. Waters honoring our fair state, together with two other magnificent members of Congress, Barbara "Call me Senator" Boxer and Dianne "Confiscate All Guns" Feinstein.
Click to expand...



if SJL got into UVa, their affirmative action program is even worse than Harvard's was. If you were a white male and not a UVa resident, your chances of getting into UVa was less than one of of 9.

One of my college friends-from Richmond (and who went to UVa law) noted: UVa law is 90% good old Virginians and 10% Jewish yankees. Of course he also noted the UVa law review was 90% Jewish Yankees .......
 
haymarket said:
It is either ironic or sickening or laughable that so many on the far right wing wallow in the self imposed delusion that there is no right to vote when it is mentioned at least five different times in no less than five different parts of the US Constitution. Their personal favorite of the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned but once by comparison.
Click to expand...

your position the constitution created the the right to vote 5 times is hilarious
 
Master PO said:
there is not right to vote, CONGRESS and the states cannot create a right. rights are recognized by the constitution or by the USSC, the court has recognized voting it as a "liberty issue". voting is privilege, its not a right, you are proof that we have people in America living under our constitution who do not understand it. the amendments you posted are about powers of federal government, you need to read them, they don't grant people anything
Click to expand...

Oh we understand it, just don't see it the way you wish. Us and most courts see it differently than you and our Republic is so much the better for it.

The amendments refer to the right to vote- it seems you didn't read the amendments you argue so adamantly about... :roll:

You argue against your own 'logic'- named rights are recognized by the Constitution- speech and bearing arms. Some of the founders worried about people like you and Scalia- if the right isn't named you both feel it is at best a privilege- the founders felt some rights are self-evident. Later as the literalists attempted to limit rights more amendments were added and they refer to the RIGHT to vote, not the privilege... :doh

Read the amendments- you are proof some reactionaries would remove rights and give the government the power to withhold them under the label of privilege...

No Sir, I swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution- there are numerous amendments (every bit as much a part of the Constitution as the main body) that refer to citizens voting as a right and not even a phrase that calls voting by the citizens a privilege... :peace
 
Master PO said:
your position the constitution created the the right to vote 5 times is hilarious
Click to expand...

The Constitution discusses the RIGHT TO VOTE five different times in five different places passed at five different times in US History. But still extreme right wingers deny that it is a right.
 
haymarket said:
The Constitution discusses the RIGHT TO VOTE five different times in five different places passed at five different times in US History. But still extreme right wingers deny that it is a right.
Click to expand...

the constitution does not create any rights, ...none.

where is your right to vote when the 14th was created since women cannot vote, the reason is voting is not a right and never has been

for you to think a right to voting was created 5 times is ridiculous
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
Oh we understand it, just don't see it the way you wish. Us and most courts see it differently than you and our Republic is so much the better for it.

The amendments refer to the right to vote- it seems you didn't read the amendments you argue so adamantly about... :roll:

You argue against your own 'logic'- named rights are recognized by the Constitution- speech and bearing arms. Some of the founders worried about people like you and Scalia- if the right isn't named you both feel it is at best a privilege- the founders felt some rights are self-evident. Later as the literalists attempted to limit rights more amendments were added and they refer to the RIGHT to vote, not the privilege... :doh

Read the amendments- you are proof some reactionaries would remove rights and give the government the power to withhold them under the label of privilege...

No Sir, I swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution- there are numerous amendments (every bit as much a part of the Constitution as the main body) that refer to citizens voting as a right and not even a phrase that calls voting by the citizens a privilege... :peace
Click to expand...

so far all you have done is make proclamations on your position without proving anything.

as i said you do not understand your constitution.

if you read your amendments you posted you will see the federal government is being granted a power in those amendments, no rights have ever been created by government in the u.s.

voting is legal right/civil right, which is a privilege in the constitution, the 14th amendment is known as the civil rights amendment

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: “What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?” The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, “The right to vote.” But that “right” has always been on shaky ground. Just as the Constitution once countenanced slavery, it also allowed voting to be restricted to property-holding white men. The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it. Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote.


Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote : Democracy Journal

https://www.ashford.edu/online-degrees/political-science/your-vote-and-the-us-constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
the constitution does not create any rights, ...none.

where is your right to vote when the 14th was created since women cannot vote, the reason is voting is not a right and never has been

for you to think a right to voting was created 5 times is ridiculous
Click to expand...

save that tired old record for somebody who still can play 78's.
 
haymarket said:
save that tired old record for somebody who still can play 78's.
Click to expand...
:lamo, its hard for you when you have no knowledge of rights and constitutional law

the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”
 
Master PO said:
:lamo, its hard for you when you have no knowledge of rights and constitutional law

the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”
Click to expand...

Save it for your fellow believers who prostrate themselves before he right wing altar and deny the words of the Constitution. Such people have no use in a rational discussion based on reality.
 
Master PO said:
In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: “What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?” The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, “The right to vote.” ]
Click to expand...

You remind me of those 'libertarians' who claim we have no need to pay income tax because of a procedural error, or Texas can still leave the Union if they desire... :roll:

No right is limitless, the right to vote isn't without exception- felons and the like.

But the Constitution is clear- the amendments don't say women have the privilege to vote. That former slaves have the privilege to vote- they has the RIGHT to vote.

You want to tap dance with very narrow rulings and opinions. Problem is the Constitution says repeatedly- THE RIGHT TO VOTE

All your other dribble is just that... weak rapid right attempts to roll back rights... :peace
 
haymarket said:
Save it for your fellow believers who prostrate themselves before he right wing altar and deny the words of the Constitution. Such people have no use in a rational discussion based on reality.
Click to expand...

:lamo, FUNNY how you refuse the USSC

Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
You remind me of those 'libertarians' who claim we have no need to pay income tax because of a procedural error, or Texas can still leave the Union if they desire... :roll:

No right is limitless, the right to vote isn't without exception- felons and the like.

But the Constitution is clear- the amendments don't say women have the privilege to vote. That former slaves have the privilege to vote- they has the RIGHT to vote.

You want to tap dance with very narrow rulings and opinions. Problem is the Constitution says repeatedly- THE RIGHT TO VOTE

All your other dribble is just that... weak rapid right attempts to roll back rights... :peace
Click to expand...

you have been proven wrong and will not admit it

Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

you also don't read the amendments you throw out

the 14-15-19- amendments grant the federal government powers, they don't grant a right

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 5.

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

AMENDMENT XV

Section 2.

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

AMENDMENT XIX

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And of course , for you, whatever the SC has ALWAYS said about EVERYTHING is the final word and becomes your official opinion. :roll::doh:shock:
 
haymarket said:
And of course , for you, whatever the SC has ALWAYS said about EVERYTHING is the final word and becomes your official opinion. :roll::doh:shock:
Click to expand...

i dont always agree with the court, but thats the law and i have to stand by it.

when i post on the constitution, its on what the founders have to to say on an issue, so its not my words its theirs.

you on the other hand take no position, you float with whatever you want you position to be at the time on purpose to try and keep anyone from nailing you hide to the wall, however it does does not always work for you because your hide has been nailed to it so many times.
 
haymarket said:
So stop using it then.
Click to expand...


please don't half quote me


Master PO said:
i dont always agree with the court, but thats the law and i have to stand by it.
Click to expand...

:lamo, so you are going to deny the Bush v. Gore USSC decision then?

Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

because the decision states ..."there is not right to vote"
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
thats the law and i have to stand by it.

:lamo, so you are going to deny the Bush v. Gore USSC decision then?

Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

because the decision states ..."there is not right to vote"
Click to expand...

The Constitution itself uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it no less than five times. One decision in one year does not change that reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom