Ghosts Weren't Even Mentioned Before

[merh]

?
Someone is going to force one to eat grasshoppers?

[abbey1227]

Aug 26, 2022 21:34:12 GMT merh said:

?
Someone is going to force one to eat grasshoppers?

Can someone force people to stop driving gasoline powered cars?

Can someone force people to purchase insurance?

Can someone offer free train rides to amusement parks/work camps?  

[merh]

Aug 27, 2022 2:39:47 GMT abbey1227 said:

Aug 26, 2022 21:34:12 GMT merh said:

?
Someone is going to force one to eat grasshoppers?

Can someone force people to stop driving gasoline powered cars?

Can someone force people to purchase insurance?

Can someone offer free train rides to amusement parks/work camps?  

So you need a gun?

Is this gun going to allow you to buy a gas powered car if they aren't available? You don't live here. What's your worry? 15 yrs from now, who knows who will be here? I certainly hope I will be, but...who knows? Maybe North Korea will nuke us.

You get a fine for not having insurance.
I have been hit by uninsured motorists to the point I think it should all be no fault. Insure one's own car. They hit you with no insurance, you're fine. They're screwed.

Why do you want a train to an amusement park?
It's usually a van.

[merh]

Two Dads Charged with Attempted Murder After Daughters Were Shot in Florida Road Rage Incident
William Hale and Frank Allison got into a fight while driving near Jacksonville and each shot into the other's vehicle, cops say
By Steve Helling Published on October 14, 2022 04:37 PM

An apparent road rage incident in Florida led to two girls getting shot — and their fathers both being arrested on attempted murder charges

In a news conference on Monday, Nassau County sheriff Bill Leeper said that William Hale, 36, and Frank Allison, 43, were riding in separate vehicles on October 8 with their respective daughters when they had a driving dispute.

According to First Coast News, a witness called 911 and said that the two men were driving erratically and "brake checking" each other. The witness also said that the two men were playing a "cat and mouse" game on the road.

In the press conference, Sheriff Leeper told reporters how the situation turned violent.

According to Leeper, Hale was driving a black Dodge Ram when he pulled up alongside Allison's gray Nissan Murano. Hale yelled at Allison to pull over.

Leeper says that a passenger in Allison's Nissan made on obscene gesture at Hale. Someone in Hale's vehicle then threw a plastic water bottle into Allison's vehicle.

Then, according to Leeper, Allison grabbed his Sig Saur 45mm handgun and fired one shot at Hale's truck before speeding away, Leeper said. The bullet struck Hale's 5-year-old daughter in the leg.

When Hale realized that his daughter had been shot, he allegedly pursued Allison's truck and fired several bullets from his Glock 43 9mm handgun. One of the bullets hit Allison's 14-year-old daughter in the back, collapsing her lung.

Leeper says that both men continued speeding along when they saw a Sheriff's vehicle on the side of the road. They pulled over and began fist fighting until a deputy split them up

Both children were rushed to the hospital. They are both expected to survive their injuries.

PEOPLE confirms that both men have been charged with second-degree attempted murder. They were each booked on $150,000 bond and have both been released. They have not yet entered a plea, and court records do not reflect attorneys authorized to speak on their behalf.

Leeper says that both men are lucky that no one was killed in the incident. "What's scarier than one crazy driver with a gun?" he asked rhetorically. "Two crazy drivers with a gun."

Your kid is shot ao you chase the other dude rather than take your kid to the doctor?

This is the sort of scary driving I've mentioned my husband did. Brake checking? Yeah.

Sad thing is, it's not new.
Remember World of Disney showed Goofy turning into a maniac driver behind the wheel back in the 60s.

[abbey1227]

Oct 14, 2022 23:55:48 GMT merh said:

Two Dads Charged with Attempted Murder After Daughters Were Shot in Florida Road Rage Incident

Your kid is shot ao you chase the other dude rather than take your kid to the doctor?

This is the sort of scary driving I've mentioned my husband did. Brake checking? Yeah.

Sad thing is, it's not new.
Remember World of Disney showed Goofy turning into a maniac driver behind the wheel back in the 60s.

There's some more of that story telling that leaves me scratching my head.

And this is what passes for parents these days?

Yeah, makes me wanna contribute and support them all. 

[merh]

Oops

[merh]

To be fair, the dude should have said "instead of balling up a fist"
Reaching for a fist makes no sense

[abbey1227]

Nov 1, 2022 17:16:06 GMT merh said:

To be fair, the dude should have said "instead of balling up a fist"
Reaching for a fist makes no sense

or a knife

[merh]

A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism
BY MARK JOSEPH STERN
NOV 02, 202212:00 PM
Thomas wears a suit and tie and talks into a mic.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 21, 2021, in Washington. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable.

In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails.

Bruen exemplifies these problems. Thomas adopted a tendentious and selective reading of the record, endorsing a false narrative shaped by Republican-allied academics funded by gun rights groups like the NRA. He started with the false premise that the Second Amendment created an individual right to bear arms—a right that the court established for the first time in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller—which scholars have comprehensively debunked using originalist tools. He then manipulated or ignored long-established limits on concealed carry to conclude that such restrictions are not rooted in American history

By appointing a trained historian, Reeves could avoid these pitfalls. He would, indeed, stand a better chance of lighting upon the truth. Even as it may be mandated by Thomas’ Bruen opinion, any such undertaking remains fundamentally misguided: Renowned historian Eric Foner recently dismissed the “foolish” belief that the Constitution has “one original meaning,” since it always meant “different things to a lot of different people” who were involved in its ratification. But a historian will at least get closer to a plausible interpretation than Thomas. And if the whole undertaking fails to produce a good answer, it will have demonstrated the absurdity of defining rights on the basis of history alone.

There’s another, subtler benefit of Reeves’ idea. Bruen stacked the deck against gun restrictions by putting the burden on the government to identify appropriate “historical analogues,” then it let judges limit their review to the government’s findings. As Jake Charles, a scholar at the Duke Center for Firearms Law, noted in June, this framework means that courts can strike down democratically enacted gun restrictions simply because the government lawyer tasked with defending them failed to dig up the necessary evidence. In other words, courts may invalidate lifesaving gun restrictions that are perfectly constitutional as a result of bad lawyering. (Not even bad lawyering, really—just an inability to do a job that is inherently impossible.) And since the burden of justifying a gun law always falls on the government, an incomplete historical record will always tip the scales toward gun rights.
In his Thursday order, the judge wrote that he did not want to “cherry-pick” facts, but gain a comprehensive analysis of firearm regulation in 1791. That approach is especially wise in this context, since challenges to the ban on felon possession of a firearm have proliferated after Bruen. Every former felon charged with illegal firearm possession has an incentive to contest this statute, so countless judges will examine the history behind it. Reeves can preempt a terrible decision rooted in bogus history by allowing his own expert to scrutinize the record and put forth a compelling case one way or the other. And the evidence may be useful beyond this case: Reeves could, for instance, apply the findings toward his work as the chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Neither prosecutors nor the defendant have responded to Reeves’ proposal yet, but it would be surprising if either party objected to a professional review of the relevant history. Fairly or not, an objection would create the impression of trying to suppress the truth in favor of their own cherry-picked facts. Ever since Bruen, courts have been stumbling around in the fog of Thomas’ motivated reasoning. Reeves, who is Black, will not pretend that he can divine the intentions of dead white men from the 1790s. His candor—respectful and eloquent as it is—puts Justice Thomas’ fake history to shame.

/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html

[merh]

“Originalism Is Intellectually Indefensible”: Eric Foner on the Enduring Myth of the Colorblind Constitution
A conversation with the historian and Second Founding author about the parts of the Constitution that conservative judges keep trying to forget.

Q&A
ORIGINALISM
BY CRISTIAN FARIAS
OCTOBER 28, 2022

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made waves earlier this month when she used her perch to offer a vision of racial equality that stands at odds with how the Supreme Court often treats matters of race. The justice’s lengthy remarks, which came during oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan, an important redistricting case that could weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965, felt like a mini-history lesson on Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments that were ratified during that period. “I don’t think that the historical record establishes that the founders believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required,” she said.

Jackson’s colloquy drew praise from commentators, some of whom noted that she was employing “progressive originalism” to advance a robust defense of racial equality under the law—which the Supreme Court has all but declared must be colorblind and not give a boost to people who have been historically marginalized on account of their race. With affirmative action in the sights of a reactionary supermajority, her insights on the Fourteenth Amendment may prove ever more valuable.

Beyond legal doctrine, I wanted to know what Eric Foner, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on Reconstruction, thought about Jackson’s take on this history. “I am of two minds about Justice Jackson’s remarks,” he told me in an email. “I am not a believer in originalism and do not want to operate on terrain constructed by the conservative justices. Originalism is intellectually indefensible. But if you are going to talk about history you had better get it right, and she does a much better job of that than those who believe the architects of Reconstruction were colorblind.”

There was a lot to unpack there, so the two of us spoke on the phone to talk some more about Jackson, the sham of originalism, the current Supreme Court’s selective reading of history, and what he might tell the liberal justices if he had their ear.

Why is originalism problematic from a historical perspective?

Eric Foner: There is no important document in the world that has only one original meaning or one original intention. Let us take the Fourteenth Amendment: It’s ambiguous. It is full of generalities—general principles, which is fine. They have to be worked out, whether it’s “due process of law,” or “privileges and immunities.”

Those phrases meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. These things were fought over. They were contested. And one of the points I make when I write about this is that the whole search for this generally looks purely at the debates in Congress, and therefore completely eliminates any Black voice. What did African Americans who are the subject of the Fourteenth Amendment in many ways—what did they think these ideas these phrases meant? And what did they think of the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment? Without Black legislators in the South, under Radical Reconstruction, voting to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be no Fourteenth Amendment. And they must have had their own ideas about what they were doing, what they were trying to accomplish.

But you never get that in these discussions. And I just think it’s a misconceived effort. There’s nothing wrong with figuring out what people were trying to do. That’s part of the historical effort to understand the time period. But to think that there’s one original meaning is just foolish, in my opinion.

So you wouldn’t even concede the point that originalism is a tool rather than the tool to interpret the Constitution.

[Laughs] You know, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a law professor. I’m not a constitutional scholar, although I play one on TV sometimes. But, you know, people can use all sorts of tools. But even if there were a single original intent, I don’t think we should accept the premise that that is what should govern an essential part of our political and legal system right now. I’m a believer in what they call the living Constitution; you apply these principles at the present, not by going back to figuring out what in 1866 Senator Jacob Howard or Charles Sumner, or for that matter, Jefferson Davis thought about what the Fourteenth Amendment meant.

And the idea that in the Dobbs decision, that somehow we are excluded from policies that didn’t exist a century and a half ago, is completely antidemocratic. But that’s what the Supreme Court says on gun control. Justice Thomas’s opinion (in Bruen, which expanded the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public spaces, says), “No, well, they didn’t pass the kind of laws that they passed now back then. So we can’t do it now.” Ridiculous, in my opinion.

I’m glad that you brought up Dobbs. Let’s talk about that a little bit. Because if you read Justice Alito’s opinion, there’s not even a pretense that it’s a so-called originalist opinion. He goes through some doctrinal legal analysis, but there was nowhere even an attempt to define what liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment means. And for that reason, then you wonder: What are we even doing here?

It’s a kind of reverse originalism, that decision. It’s just saying, “Well, the absence of pro-choice legislation 200 years ago should determine what we do now.” So, yeah, I think it’s ridiculous that it’s a straitjacket on public policy. But this seems to be where we’re heading. What about the right to privacy? Does that exist? It’s not mentioned, as we all know, by a word in the Constitution, but it’s become part for the last 50 years of our concept of law and politics.

The Dobbs opinion makes clear that the conservative justices pick and choose what they want the Constitution to mean, based on the policy outcomes that they prefer. What do you make of this current of progressive lawyers and academics who perhaps want to play on that terrain with the conservative justices, and try to divine a progressive understanding of the Constitution on originalist grounds. Is that a fool’s errand?

Yeah, in my humble opinion. Not because it isn’t logical, in many ways. I just got in the mail that book … What is it called? I have it right here on my shelf. Yeah, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution, by William Forbath and Joseph Fishkin, and that’s exactly what you’re talking about. Is that good history? I’m not sure—I respect them very much. But I’m not a constitutional historian.

My point is, there is a lot of leeway within the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment, actually, for public policies far more far-reaching than this court would ever agree to. And of course, every one of those three amendments ends with a section saying Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment. Not the Supreme Court, not the secretary of state or somebody — Congress. But over time, the Supreme Court has asserted its right to overrule what Congress decides, even though the Constitution textually, specifically gives it to Congress.

It’s pretty clear why: They didn’t trust the Supreme Court. How could you trust a body which had produced the Dred Scott decision not that long before? They didn’t want the Supreme Court meddling around with what Congress decided was necessary in order to uplift former slaves into equality. But that’s what’s happened.

If that’s the case, Congress should consider other laws. But if they’re all going to get knocked down by the Supreme Court, then I guess it’s not worth the time to pass these laws. In my book on these three amendments, I pointed to a very long book, published in the 1880s, by a group of Black lawyers, severely criticizing the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and putting forward a different vision. You know, a different vision of things like the right to employment, the right to an education, as being part of liberty and privileges of citizens and things like that.

That’s part of the original intent, also—part of the original debate. We can choose which part of the historical record we want to emphasize and act on. That’s why I don’t like this originalist thing—because it’s a straitjacket limiting public policy.

Since this reading, or this interpretive method, is a straitjacket, as you put it, then how — and you’ve already told me that you’re not a judge, or a legal scholar — but how should then a liberal vision of the Constitution be? How should they interpret these amendments?

The Warren Court did a pretty good job of that. They took these principles—not the specifics, the principles—and said, “How do we apply that principle at the moment, at the current time?” How these originalists can accept Brown v. Board of Education has always been very mysterious for me. You know, it’s not an originalist decision. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said—[Chief Justice Earl] Warren explicitly said, “We don’t know what the people intended in 1866. We’re interested in what we should do now.” That’s how I would interpret it.

And as you put it yourself, in your own writings, the people who ratified the Reconstruction Amendments seemed to be fine with segregated schools, so long as Black kids also had a shot at it.

Yeah, but why should that lead us to say, “Well, schools are fine in 2000,” or something? But again, whose intent is it really? Or whose originalism? Is it just judges of the time? Or just members of Congress of the time? One of my favorite quotes about Reconstruction was printed in the autobiography of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, where she says that Reconstruction was a time when the fundamentals of government were debated all up and down the society, in churches, at every fireside—people were debating these things in their homes. And yet you never get a sense of that—that they were trying to work out what these principles meant. And there’s no single original meaning that one can devise out of this. Unfortunately, I’m not one of the nine people figuring this out.

And yet let’s try to be strategic here: If you had the ear of Justice Jackson and the two other liberal justices, what would you tell them, besides don’t play with the master’s tools?

I’m a historian. I’m certainly not going to tell them, “Don’t look at history. Don’t think about history.” As [Justice Jackson] points out, the history of the Reconstruction Era is something everybody should know about. And if you’re interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, you really need to know what was going on in the country in the aftermath of the Civil War and the end of slavery.

But I would say this: Don’t accept the premise that that is the grounds on which we can determine whether a piece of legislation is legitimate or not.

This came up at the argument in Merrill v. Milligan, and it’ll come up again later this month when the court considers affirmative action policies. Why is it that, at least among the conservative justices and lawyers, this idea of colorblindness in the Fourteenth Amendment holds so much appeal?

It holds appeal because it’s a way of sticking it to the liberals. After all, it’s [Justice John Marshall] Harlan, who used that phrase in a dissent [in Plessy v. Ferguson, which rendered separate-but-equal accommodations constitutional]. One thing that’s not mentioned is the Supreme Court has never decided that the Constitution is colorblind—there’s never been five people who have said, “No, the Constitution is completely colorblind.” There may be now. But it’s their way of blocking or preventing any kind of affirmative action, so to speak, to uplift. They’re not interested in trying to uplift the status of African Americans in this country. And this gives them a weapon. Because it’s very hard to argue against it — “Oh, no, yes, the Constitution actually should be color-biased, it should be in favor of one group by color and not another.” It’s very hard to argue against the abstraction of colorblindness.

There were plenty of people during Reconstruction, who, yes, thought that the law and the Constitution should be colorblind. On the other hand, as [Jackson] points out, there were plenty of people who thought specific laws trying to assist the former slaves were totally legitimate under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Colorblindness is not the only original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was the original meaning in the eyes of some people, but not a lot of others.

One phrase that Justice Jackson used in her colloquy during the Milligan argument was that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was meant to ensure African Americans would have the same rights as those “enjoyed by white citizens.” And that itself is almost a rejection of colorblindness, because it uses race to uplift the race that was historically left out.

That’s a very good point. I mean, that’s an amazing thing in that law—it’s an amazing law to begin with.

But yes, to say that all citizens must enjoy the same rights as white persons was a complete repudiation of the history of the United States up to that point. Up to that point, white people enjoyed far more rights than any other group of people had. For the law now to say, “No, no, you can’t do that”—whiteness now becomes not a form of exclusion, but a standard that must apply to everybody. You want to know what basic rights in terms going to court, or testifying, or whatever, that non-whites should enjoy—look at what white people have. And then that’s the same thing that non-whites ought to have.

That’s certainly color-conscious. But you know, most people don’t even know what’s in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. So I’m glad she reminded people of that.

The current justices, both so-called originalists and the ones that are not so committed to that project—are there any analogues with the Reconstruction justices that you could think of? Are they similar or different from how the Court operated in the era?

It was so different back then. The Court didn’t exercise nearly the power—people didn’t say, “Oh, well, let’s see what the Supreme Court says,” you know? The Supreme Court was a much more minor institution at that time. And the justices—a couple of them were still on the Court who had voted in the Dred Scott decision. Most of them by this point were Republicans, but of various stripes. They were feeling their way, just like everybody else. One of the worst decisions of that period came really early, the Slaughterhouse decision in 1873, which kind of cut off the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thomas is an interesting guy. Thomas wants to get rid of Slaughterhouse and resurrect the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which I would like to think on also, because I think that opens the door for many assertions of people’s rights. Thomas probably feels the same way, but he’s more interested in other rights than I am.

I don’t think he’s really interested in applying that clause to, say, undocumented immigrants.

No, hardly. But I think that clause opens up all sorts of possibilities. What are the privileges and immunities of citizens? Let’s take one example, which was actually debated a lot at that time: the right to an education—that the right to an adequate education is a privilege of citizenship, and it must be enforced in the states. And the Court has never gone anywhere near that.

But remember, they’re in the shadow of slavery. The denial of education, of literacy, to slaves was one of the many atrocities under slavery that was on their mind. You want to be an originalist? Go back and look what Jacob Howard said about this. But, you know, the Court has never wanted to go down that road.

Perhaps a project for Justice Jackson, especially in this moment of retrenchment, if she’s interested to look to the future for a counter-counterrevolution, would be to look at the works of those Black intellectuals and radicals from Reconstruction and try to revive some of that project.

That’s what I call for in my book on all this, The Second Founding. It ends by saying that there are other visions of jurisprudence out there, rooted in the history, not just made up out of whole cloth. And one of these days, maybe the Supreme Court will rediscover that jurisprudence. I’m not too optimistic right now. But you never know.

I’m not optimistic either. And to be clear, maybe she has to use the podium and her dissents to articulate it. That’s the only way.

Absolutely. She’s got two brilliant colleagues—[Justice Elena] Kagan and [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor. All of them know this history very well. But, as I said, I don’t believe that that is the determining factor in what legislation is allowable under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Those amendments can be resurrected. There is no reason they shouldn’t be resurrected as much more vigorous assertions of the basic rights of all Americans, but particularly the descendants of former slaves.

ballsandstrikes.org/qa/eric-foner-originalism-colorblind-constitution-myth/

[abbey1227]

Nov 3, 2022 18:29:11 GMT merh said:

A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism

How much armed security does that puss rely on?

[abbey1227]

Nov 3, 2022 18:33:42 GMT merh said:

“Originalism Is Intellectually Indefensible”: Eric Foner on the Enduring Myth of the Colorblind Constitution
A conversation with the historian and Second Founding author about the parts of the Constitution that conservative judges keep trying to forget.

Absolutely. She’s got two brilliant colleagues—[Justice Elena] Kagan and [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor. All of them know this history very well. But, as I said, I don’t believe that that is the determining factor in what legislation is allowable under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Those amendments can be resurrected. There is no reason they shouldn’t be resurrected as much more vigorous assertions of the basic rights of all Americans, but particularly the descendants of former slaves.

ballsandstrikes.org/qa/eric-foner-originalism-colorblind-constitution-myth/

I'm sure the brilliant Cristian and those favorite judges believe that society has improved and gotten more civilized since we stopped pushing attempting to be colorblind in favor of pointing out colors everywhere we look.    Yay, tribalism

[merh]

Ohio man fatally shoots neighbor ‘because he thought he was a Democrat’
Travis Gettys
November 08, 2022

A southwest Ohio man shot and killed his neighbor because he believed he was a Democrat, according to the victim's family.

Austin Gene Gibbs was taken into custody by Butler County sheriff's deputies just before noon Monday after the shooting was reported in Okeana, and investigators found Anthony Lee King dead from multiple gunshot wounds, reported the Journal-News.

“My neighbor just shot my dad,” the victim's son told dispatchers. "[He] has come over multiple times making statements. He’s insane.”


The caller's mother sobbed in the background and told dispatchers the 43-year-old King had been cutting grass and doing yardwork when she went inside to let their dog out, and that's when she heard gunshots.

“I look in the backyard and that man is walking away from my husband and my husband is on the ground,” the woman told dispatchers. “He has come over like four times confronting my husband because he thought he was a Democrat, Why, why … Please, I don’t understand.”

The 26-year-old Gibbs was arrested a short time later while driving away from the shooting scene with his father.

www.rawstory.com/ohio-shooting-neighbor-democrat/

You do insist the government should issue gund to everyone, right?

[merh]

Nov 4, 2022 1:44:49 GMT abbey1227 said:

Nov 3, 2022 18:33:42 GMT merh said:

ballsandstrikes.org/qa/eric-foner-originalism-colorblind-constitution-myth/

I'm sure the brilliant Cristian and those favorite judges believe that society has improved and gotten more civilized since we stopped pushing attempting to be colorblind in favor of pointing out colors everywhere we look.    Yay, tribalism

I was taught in school our constitution was made to evolve, not stay stuck in 1780

[abbey1227]

Nov 8, 2022 17:56:36 GMT merh said:

Nov 4, 2022 1:44:49 GMT abbey1227 said:

I'm sure the brilliant Cristian and those favorite judges believe that society has improved and gotten more civilized since we stopped pushing attempting to be colorblind in favor of pointing out colors everywhere we look.    Yay, tribalism

I was taught in school our constitution was made to evolve, not stay stuck in 1780

That's true.......but procedurally ...........how is that done? A very important distinction.

[merh]

Nov 9, 2022 1:36:16 GMT abbey1227 said:

Nov 8, 2022 17:56:36 GMT merh said:

I was taught in school our constitution was made to evolve, not stay stuck in 1780

That's true.......but procedurally ...........how is that done? A very important distinction.

Congress & Amendments

[abbey1227]

Nov 13, 2022 0:35:15 GMT merh said:

Nov 9, 2022 1:36:16 GMT abbey1227 said:

That's true.......but procedurally ...........how is that done? A very important distinction.

Congress & Amendments

and there it is. The proper way.

Just like going to war REQUIRES an official declaration.  

[merh]

" alt=" "]

[abbey1227]

Aug 26, 2022 21:34:12 GMT merh said:

?
Someone is going to force one to eat grasshoppers?

?

Someone is going to force people to give up their gasoline vehicles?

Someone is going to force cattle farmers out of business?

Someone is going to force people to live under Social Credits?

gee, I wonder who that someone might be?         I got it!!! extremist libertarians

[abbey1227]

Nov 24, 2022 13:29:05 GMT merh said:

" alt=" "]

just let us all know when the gun murders comes anywhere near the abortion numbers.