Yes, because it is a living document, in both sense of the word.Most of scotus were educated at the school where the living document doctrine originates from.
As I said, interpretation of the Constitution is the job of SCOTUS.
Yes, because it is a living document, in both sense of the word.Most of scotus were educated at the school where the living document doctrine originates from.
No it is not. The constitution has a well defined process for amendments and any attempts to change it through wordplay are acts of usurpation.Yes, because it is a living document, in both sense of the word.
As I said, interpretation of the Constitution is the job of SCOTUS.
Yes, it is open for Amendments, and the actual language already in place is subject to interpretation by SCOTUS; this is nothing new.No it is not. The constitution has a well defined process for amendments and any attempts to change it through wordplay are acts of usurpation.
WOOOSH!Yes, it is open for Amendments, and the actual language already in place is subject to interpretation by SCOTUS; this is nothing new.
I have to be entirely honest: If this passes and is actually implemented, I'm pretty sure the path to civil war will be set. I know I know, everyone says this, but this is huge. They get away with this? No election will ever be secure again.
Eh, I still don't think there's enough will or organization for a civil war: I think freedom will be won politically, or we'll live in tyranny until the tyrants give up.
Actually I disagree. Republicans are too placid to fight unless the states are involved. What will happen is that the federal government will go one way, and republican states will refuse. The powderkeg will stay that way for a few weeks until a spark is available, then things will set off.There is a thread just for 2nd American Civil War going on, but the main thing we have agreed on is it will be nothing like the first one.
Actually I disagree. Republicans are too placid to fight unless the states are involved. What will happen is that the federal government will go one way, and republican states will refuse. The powderkeg will stay that way for a few weeks until a spark is available, then things will set off.
ACW 2.0 probably not going to happen, for the simple reason that 99% of any attempts to create an organized resistance is going to get infil'd by CI's and undereovers that it will be busted up before it actually becomes a threat to those with power.
At most, we may see a state or two end up having skirmishes with the Feds using MG vs reg troops, if things get really nasty.
But as long as DC has the nuke codes and control over the nuclear triad, most thoughts of effective violent resistance is...well a pipe dream.
Don't mistake the Taliban's situation for something that can be pulled off on American soil, and do not think that the gov is not well prepared to handle this sort of shit, either.
Humiliating the powers that be through social media, through civil disobedience ala MLK, and through not complying with their narratives is the most effective means to fight back in this generation, not force of arms.
We don't need another George Washington, we need a Laughing Man.
I'm pretty sure there's already a civil war thread. This is the election fraud thread.
Speaking of which, I wonder what the likelihood of the HR 4 bill passing the Senate is? Do the Democrats need 60 votes or just 50?
Highly doubt, as multiple dems have also gone out against it. Like the first oneIf the mods wanna move the 2ACW comments they can.
HR1 failed but given the recent history of RINOs putting up token resistance to progressive policies only to agree on slightly less progressive ones as a "compromise" with nothing in return the prognostic is not very good.