Repel the 19th amendment hashtag

Post Reply New Topic

I'm English so don't have much stake in the election but I wondered what your opinions were of the repel the 19th hashtag that's been going around?

Weird.

It's like putting a sticker on your car that reads "This car driven by an a**hole."

Even if people were stupid enough to think such a thing, why would they admit it in public?

Maybe they are also stupid enough to think their views on this have a chance of ever being relevant again?

Still, it's helpful of them to self-identify in this way.

It's really not worth commenting on. Just ignore it.

If you repeal the 19th Amendment, women would not have the right to vote.

Whoever advocates this is either out of his mind, or is actively trolling.

It's akin to repealing the 13th Amendment. If this happened, slavery would be legal again.

I wouldn't mind the 16th amendment being repealed

Basket of deplorables.

Basically all that needs to be said. It's literally rooted in "Trump would win if no women voted," which is another way of saying "my pet candidate matters more than half the population being able to have a say in government and I'm willing to deprive them aforementioned say forever just to get him elected." It's some creepy s**t.

And, the Seventeenth Amendment.

LOL....Obviously the 16th.

I still believe in the direct election of Senators, though.

I would definitely repeal 16 and 17, and I'd ratify the original amendment #1, "Article the First," which has been pending since 1789:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressi ... _Amendment

Yep. I want to be able to find my representative and senator in my neighborhood, not somebody like Orrin Hatch who, while he was an actual neighbor of mine, was never to be found there. Senators live out their looong lives in Washington. Hardly representative, I would say.

After this election...lets just go back to monarchy.

In fact I am startin' to think that that whole breaking away from England thing was a mistake!

The difference between "going back" to a democratically elected constitutional republic and a monarchy should be obvious to even the most challenged of politicos. After all, the very idea of constitutional "original intent" came from the Democratic Party. The idea of "states' rights" also came from the Democratic Party. The vitriol about those ideas from those who support and supported that party during the last 60 to 70 years is startling. Either they know very little about their party's founding ideas or they are abjectly destructive of ideas that not only made sense to the Jeffersonians of the early 19th century, but also influenced the greatness of a nation which respected accurate law making and differences between states beyond the effects of our constitutional compact.

I think we should repeal this entire "rule of law" system of shenanigans...

... and go back to solving political disputes by throwing feces at each other...

It would probably - except for the obvious smell - be more civil than the current political climate...

That being said... obvious trolls are obvious...

Actually, original intent theory in its codified form is a pretty new idea going back to Robert Bork, a Republican. Thomas Jefferson glorified the Anglo-Saxon common law system, which evolves based on legal precedent. No common law system is a straightjacket preventing a state from addressing new circumstances with anything but two-century-old methods.



This is true, but the parties have evolved over time. "States' rights," over the last few decades, has largely meant "dog-whistle to people pissed about Jim Crow ending." The Nixon-era Southern Strategy explicitly targeted this, and that's where the "states' rights" term moved from Strom Thurmond/George Wallace Democrats (Dixiecrats) to the mainstream of the Republican Party. The left tends to take issue with this.

For the principle of decentralization or subsidiarity itself, both parties are a confused mishmash. For example, on the left you don't see complaints about state-level marijuana laws that conflict with federal mandate. On the right, it's largely local religious decisions that conflict with federal law that are defended.

Even england isn't ruled by monarchy. We have democracy here aswell so you would still be in the same situation.

"Vitriol"?
Ya mean like what your spewing right now?

I crack a joke - and you go off on this "vitriolic" rant about some totally other subject (how long has the subject of states rights weighed on your mind so much?).

But since you brought up the subject: maybe you're right. Maybe Dems should be true to their roots. And why stop with "states rights"? Why not reinstate slavery too? Slavery worked pretty well Thomas Jefferson too! lol!

And maybe both Dems and the GOP should go back to witch burning in order to be true to our common American colonial era roots too!

Doesn't matter that something is out dated now (or that folks in the party today think that something is out dated) we absolutely hafta keep doing it forever just be true to the roots of our party affiliation (according to your logic).