And the Anti-Federalist Papers. Even though there wasn't a unified collection like the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists had a lot to do with the inception of the Bill of Rights.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump on the 2024 ballot
- Thread starter IndyGal65
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
First day of Spring? Beginning of OIF? Something else?
One thing that might be helpful to keep in mind is a great many discussions taking place here in the GP are centered around the context of historical documentation. Especially all aspects of the Constitution. I think you are probably starting to get that picture.
I still miss CM sometimes. 
His wisdom has been missed.I still miss CM sometimes.
Imagine arguing which religion was superior, without having read anything about any religion. In short you would be arguing someone else's opinion. You were taught somewhere along the line to have that opinion or you would not even have a thought to even present on the topic, because you yourself are clueless about religion. In other words you would be a perfect little drone repeating what you are told without even realizing it.
History matters. Understanding how something came to be the way it is matters. It may not be as simple as repeating what you are told, but understanding the history gives you the knowledge to form your own opinion rather that making you a mouth piece to repeat someone else's. I also advise looking at different perspectives of history to have a more concrete knowledge base. It only improves the quality of your opinion. Without understanding the history of a topic, you are just a drone who thinks they know something, when all you actually understand is what you are told to think. Some love being a drone.
Moment in time.
Our minds are always processing information both new and old. So many thoughts.Dreams,fears,hopes,realities all influencing our decisions. We interact with the world,the air,the water,the plants,animals,and each other. Most of the time the interactions are automated.Our minds process the...
Yeah, one can easily get steamrolled here in the GP if they don't familiarize themselves with historical context. I'm not saying that I know everything but I do know that, so I try to do the research needed to participate.Imagine arguing which religion was superior, without having read anything about any religion. In short you would be arguing someone else's opinion. You were taught somewhere along the line to have that opinion or you would not even have a thought to even present on the topic, because you yourself are clueless about religion. In other words you would be a perfect little drone repeating what you are told without even realizing it.
History matters. Understanding how something came to be the way it is matters. It may not be as simple as repeating what you are told, but understanding the history gives you the knowledge to form your own opinion rather that making you a mouth piece to repeat someone else's. I also advise looking at different perspectives of history to have a more concrete knowledge base. It only improves the quality of your opinion. Without understanding the history of a topic, you are just a drone who thinks they know something, when all you actually understand is what you are told to think. Some love being a drone.
Moment in time.
Our minds are always processing information both new and old. So many thoughts.Dreams,fears,hopes,realities all influencing our decisions. We interact with the world,the air,the water,the plants,animals,and each other. Most of the time the interactions are automated.Our minds process the...www.indianagunowners.com
This quote seems off and it is wrong.
“If Colorado's ruling is upheld, removing Trump from the ballot, then, Roberts speculated, "In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot."
“If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“
No, “a handful of states” would not make a determination. Per the constitution it would be thrown to the house of representatives for the president and senate for the VP.
justthenews.com
“If Colorado's ruling is upheld, removing Trump from the ballot, then, Roberts speculated, "In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot."
“If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“
No, “a handful of states” would not make a determination. Per the constitution it would be thrown to the house of representatives for the president and senate for the VP.
Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of removal of Trump from CO ballot under insurrection clause
The arguments are expected to center on a provision in the 14th Amendment that preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office
justthenews.com
Correct, assuming one candidate failed to achieve 270 EVs.This quote seems off and it is wrong.
“If Colorado's ruling is upheld, removing Trump from the ballot, then, Roberts speculated, "In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot."
“If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“
No, “a handful of states” would not make a determination. Per the constitution it would be thrown to the house of representatives for the president and senate for the VP.
Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of removal of Trump from CO ballot under insurrection clause
The arguments are expected to center on a provision in the 14th Amendment that preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office
And it will be the newly elected house and senate post election, not the current versions. So the balance could change…
The further this goes along the more I see the end being elections as an illusion. Davosians see the election of Trump as some sort of great loss in power and money even though he was in office for four years previously. To defeat him they will do anything within their considerable economic power to stop him. This election seems totally focused on one man, Donald Trump, but as I've said before, is it the man or the message.
In a contested election, the House votes by State delegations. So, perhaps it wouldn't change as much as otherwise expected.
It is actually us they hate. Middle class constitutionally sound thinkers are the antithesis of their plans…
I want to argue with you and tell you that you're wrong and all that. Sadly I can find nothing to support me so I will have to give in and agree with you.
If the Constitution says the Presidential Election would be thrown to the House of Representatives how is the quote wrong?This quote seems off and it is wrong.
“If Colorado's ruling is upheld, removing Trump from the ballot, then, Roberts speculated, "In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot."
“If this were to occur, then the presidential election would be determined by "just a handful of states," Roberts said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence," he added.“
No, “a handful of states” would not make a determination. Per the constitution it would be thrown to the house of representatives for the president and senate for the VP.
Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of removal of Trump from CO ballot under insurrection clause
The arguments are expected to center on a provision in the 14th Amendment that preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- rabbit hunter mab
- dieselrealtor
- triggerhappy00
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Ark
- d.kaufman
- r3126
- Super Bee
- vibrationeng
- nellans57
- gottabeoutdoors
- ECS686
- caverjamie
- SolidDragon74
- jcj54
- blkblt412
- sparkmanrl
- Grim714
- ldaguns
- DoggyDaddy
- Yamadog35
- jonkertb
- Jmtbug21
- Midwestjimbo
- KRN123060
- ridetoslide
- singlesix
- crookcountygo
- stevezx2
- dougha5
- NHT3
- Creedmoor
- 00Buck
- Wabatuckian
- Long Goose
- Indianajeff
- 1nderbeard
- GodFearinGunTotin
- bobzilla
- barber613
- brdhntr37
- printcraft
- Microairman1
- gds
- sp3worker
- DFacres
- jbm1521
- ISP 5353
- piper
- jwamplerusa