Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>It's right there in Section 2. Sec. 2 leaves it to Congress:
wrote:
On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plainNo amendment is above being regulated. Period.>You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of SupremeNope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
SCALIA. Remember him?
>
Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is
sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again.
No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think that
it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment XIX and
prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct", after all.
Or since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the government to
prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be
owned as slaves (Amendment XIII).
>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
>
text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
Thrill us with your acumen.
Section 2.Kinda leaves it open for all kinds of fuckery, doesn't it?
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.