Look ahead to post #293 and tell me what your argument is for states rights to do as they please to counter that post. Show your work.As far as I'm concerned it falls under states rights to do what it pleases.
Look ahead to post #293 and tell me what your argument is for states rights to do as they please to counter that post. Show your work.As far as I'm concerned it falls under states rights to do what it pleases.
You have the overreach exactly backward. The Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections. A State official doesn't have enumerated authority to declare a candidate for President to be ineligible.It's an overreach. The fed shouldn't have that kind of power to tell a state what it's local officials who were elected by the local people can and cannot do in regard to an election whether it be national or state
Eh, federal elections should be in the power of those who vote in them. Issues with constitutional rights and states rights be damned lol. Either way it doesn't matter, the people getting elected aren't reps of the people, even ones who directly voted for them. So imo it's all to the wolves anywayYou have the overreach exactly backward. The Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections. A State official doesn't have enumerated authority to declare a candidate for President to be ineligible.
Article V is the one you're looking for, if what you think should be is different from what actually is.Eh, federal elections should be in the power of those who vote in them. Issues with constitutional rights and states rights be damned lol. Either way it doesn't matter, the people getting elected aren't reps of the people, even ones who directly voted for them. So imo it's all to the wolves anyway
I don't worry about documents. Not my purview. Though I do love a convoArticle V is the one you're looking for, if what you think should be is different from what actually is.
As to your underlying point: President is not directly elected. That is a feature, not a bug, of the Constitution. Further, the federal government is comprised of and represents the several (sovereign) States, not individual citizens.
How do you have a meaningful convo without understanding the documents, though?I don't worry about documents. Not my purview. Though I do love a convo
Because I learn beliefs through convos, and beliefs are fascinating even without proper contexts. Whether there's an agreement or not doesn't really matter, it's the learning that I enjoy, friend.How do you have a meaningful convo without understanding the documents, though?
Beliefs absent context are meaningless, especially when expressing beliefs about the applicability of the rule of law. If you really had a desire to learn, you would desire to understand the Constitution that provides most of the context for the beliefs in question.Because I learn beliefs through convos, and beliefs are fascinating even without proper contexts. Whether there's an agreement or not doesn't really matter, it's the learning that I enjoy, friend.
Not really, beliefs with context taint the inner viewpoints of the person stating said beliefs. And the rule of law is but a reflection of beliefs of others who make said laws. I'm not in the business of learning about abstract concepts such as law, but I do love learning about people.Beliefs absent context are meaningless, especially when expressing beliefs about the applicability of the rule of law. If you really had a desire to learn, you would desire to understand the Constitution that provides most of the context for the beliefs in question.
In other words you just think what ever you want to believe is true, with zero regard for reality?Not really, beliefs with context taint the inner viewpoints of the person stating said beliefs. And the rule of law is but a reflection of beliefs of others who make said laws. I'm not in the business of learning about abstract concepts such as law, but I do love learning about people.
No, I believe everything is an abstraction. Things made up for the sake of justifying a perception. Justifying something just off of someone else's perception is not verifiably sound. It leads to false messianic figures preaching radicalized rhetoric.In other words you just think what ever you want to believe is true, with zero regard for reality?
It honestly cracks me up to even read that. It is so detached from reality.My truth is “the” truth…
Sorry, but you're leaving no basis for any kind of rational conversation on the subject of this thread. There is a time and a place for existentialism. This isn't one of them.Not really, beliefs with context taint the inner viewpoints of the person stating said beliefs. And the rule of law is but a reflection of beliefs of others who make said laws. I'm not in the business of learning about abstract concepts such as law, but I do love learning about people.
I've conversed with potheads more grounded in reality.It honestly cracks me up to even read that. It is so detached from reality.
Rationality is perception based. And rationality without philosophical reasoning cannot properly exist with reasonSorry, but you're leaving no basis for any kind of rational conversation on the subject of this thread. There is a time and a place for existentialism. This isn't one of them.
I've conversed with potheads more grounded in reality.
I've conversed with potheads more grounded in reality.
My truth is “the” truth…