United States Constitution Amendments
May 26, 2017 20:13:11 #
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunity's of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Only "natural-born" U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, recently in the case of potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R - Texas), who was born in Canada to Cuban-born father and a U.S-born mother.
Only "natural-born" U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time) may serve president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, recently in the case of potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R - Texas), who was born in Canada to Cuban-born father and a U.S-born mother.
May 27, 2017 18:35:36 #
patron1 wrote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the ... (show quote)
As I am sure everyone knows by now, if any law, amendment, or articular can be twisted to suit the needs of the libtards, they will do all they can to confuse the issue.
It does not change the facts however. Cruz would have been a legal candidate, Though the lame stream Media would have used that to show he wasn't. Just as they fought to keep that from being used against obummer.
May 28, 2017 06:18:32 #
The 8th
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I know a lot of people will say I am wrong in my thinking here. Just hear me out please.
When the government places a fine on a person for anything, then calls it a tax, they are in fact hiding it in a way that can not be argued in court as a fine, it then becomes, taxation with out representation. You see, to place a tax on a person when your rep, or senator doesn't even know they are voting for a fine/tax. That can not be in representation of the people. Also, to enforce a tax on a person with no income could, and should be seen as excessive. If we know a person has to make a choice of eating for the next month, or paying a fine/tax, is that not cruel and unusual punishment?
Well folks that is what came about under obummer. Hidden inside a health care bill, that "Had to be passed to find out what was in it" was a fine/tax, that no matter what your income, or lack there of, you had to pay, or you may face jail time. It doesn't matter if you haven't worked in over a year, or even 2. I have seen more than one person, facing this kind of degrading criminal action be taking against them. I have paid out of my own pocket the fines/taxes leaved against people that would have had to go without feeding their kids to pay the fine/tax, for over 2 months.
The down turn in the oil field has left many with out work for close to 3 years now. They can't afford to move, and when the oil field goes down, everything around here does as well.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I know a lot of people will say I am wrong in my thinking here. Just hear me out please.
When the government places a fine on a person for anything, then calls it a tax, they are in fact hiding it in a way that can not be argued in court as a fine, it then becomes, taxation with out representation. You see, to place a tax on a person when your rep, or senator doesn't even know they are voting for a fine/tax. That can not be in representation of the people. Also, to enforce a tax on a person with no income could, and should be seen as excessive. If we know a person has to make a choice of eating for the next month, or paying a fine/tax, is that not cruel and unusual punishment?
Well folks that is what came about under obummer. Hidden inside a health care bill, that "Had to be passed to find out what was in it" was a fine/tax, that no matter what your income, or lack there of, you had to pay, or you may face jail time. It doesn't matter if you haven't worked in over a year, or even 2. I have seen more than one person, facing this kind of degrading criminal action be taking against them. I have paid out of my own pocket the fines/taxes leaved against people that would have had to go without feeding their kids to pay the fine/tax, for over 2 months.
The down turn in the oil field has left many with out work for close to 3 years now. They can't afford to move, and when the oil field goes down, everything around here does as well.
May 30, 2017 01:10:19 #
The 9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Although there is much dispute among constitutional scholars about the meaning and legal effect of the Ninth Amendment, there is consensus about its origin. During the ratification debates over the Constitution, some opponents of ratification (“Anti-Federalists”) vociferously complained about the absence of a bill of rights. In response, supporters of the Constitution (“Federalists”) such as James Wilson argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated. Nevertheless, because the Anti-Federalist demand for a bill of rights resonated with the public, Federalists like James Madison countered with a pledge to offer amendments after the Constitution’s ratification.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Although there is much dispute among constitutional scholars about the meaning and legal effect of the Ninth Amendment, there is consensus about its origin. During the ratification debates over the Constitution, some opponents of ratification (“Anti-Federalists”) vociferously complained about the absence of a bill of rights. In response, supporters of the Constitution (“Federalists”) such as James Wilson argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated. Nevertheless, because the Anti-Federalist demand for a bill of rights resonated with the public, Federalists like James Madison countered with a pledge to offer amendments after the Constitution’s ratification.
May 31, 2017 05:36:21 #
10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now here is one I think can all agree has been ignored for way to long. The feds have used subsidies to force the states into compliance, and to strong arm them into passing laws they really didn't want. Like the seat belt law, just to name one. Had any state not passed that stubid law, they would not have been given any form of road subsidies until they did. What I don't understand is why the states put up with that form of crap. If they would simply tell the feds, if we don't get the subsidies we need, we will cut off your tax base from this state. That would leave them with more than enough to do the work they need done. Would this be legal on the states part? I do believe it would be. As we work our way along I will be showing just how that is.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now here is one I think can all agree has been ignored for way to long. The feds have used subsidies to force the states into compliance, and to strong arm them into passing laws they really didn't want. Like the seat belt law, just to name one. Had any state not passed that stubid law, they would not have been given any form of road subsidies until they did. What I don't understand is why the states put up with that form of crap. If they would simply tell the feds, if we don't get the subsidies we need, we will cut off your tax base from this state. That would leave them with more than enough to do the work they need done. Would this be legal on the states part? I do believe it would be. As we work our way along I will be showing just how that is.
Jun 4, 2017 17:13:30 #
11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The Eleventh Amendment’s text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law. During the debates over whether to ratify the Constitution, controversy arose over one provision of Article III that allowed federal courts to hear disputes “between” a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state. Anti-Federalists (who generally opposed the Constitution) feared that this provision would allow individuals to sue states in federal court. Several prominent Federalists (who generally favored the Constitution) assured their critics that Article III would not be interpreted to permit a state to be sued without its consent. However, some other Federalists accepted that Article III permitted suits against states, arguing that it would be just for federal courts to hold states accountable.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The Eleventh Amendment’s text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law. During the debates over whether to ratify the Constitution, controversy arose over one provision of Article III that allowed federal courts to hear disputes “between” a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state. Anti-Federalists (who generally opposed the Constitution) feared that this provision would allow individuals to sue states in federal court. Several prominent Federalists (who generally favored the Constitution) assured their critics that Article III would not be interpreted to permit a state to be sued without its consent. However, some other Federalists accepted that Article III permitted suits against states, arguing that it would be just for federal courts to hold states accountable.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.