How can non-citizens register to vote, let alone vote?

I'm not watching a video.

Please explain how something SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the constitution, is unconstitutional. Lol

 

Takes way too much time. If it isn't worth the investment in the video, you probably aren't that interested.

 

Perhaps this would work where you live
That is not the way it works where I live. In California
Nor was it the way it worked when I lived in Washington state

But since you must be right
I propse a n
Bet you can easily win

Next election.., you fly out here and cast a few dozen votes at different precincts
If you suceed you win the bet, I pay you
If you fail you pay me money

Like I say.., it seems like you could not possibly lose this bet
Unless of course you are full of ****

 

It's ok. We both know how batshit crazy it is to claim something that is specifically mentioned in the constitution, is unconstitutional. Lol

 

Sorry, but you are no Lewis Grizzard.

 

Forged documents or auto registration when getting a driver's license.

 

I'm just an activist with a lot of years of years of experience.

 

The income tax is not in the Constitution save of the 16th Amendment, which judges, historians, lawyers, and researchers - not to mention former IRS agents (IF you accessed the link) have stated is blatantly unconstitutional. Hell, even the guy that WROTE the law couldn't defend it.

 

Each State decides for themselves who can vote in State and Local elections.

 

There is no "right to vote" in the Constitution. There is a guarantee that the right won't be denied, but nothing that declares such a right. So, it is actually a privilege ( shortcoming of our language to refer to some privileges as "rights.") Voting is a privilege of citizenship at the federal level and whatever the states choose to make it for state and local officials.

 

every State decides for themselves who gets to vote in State and local elections.

deal with it

 

Dude, not only did I agree with you on this one, but "Liked" your post. WTH? Are you always that disagreeable when people agree with what you posted?

 

Well played, sir. Your humbleness is noted, and I can see you understand what I posted.

 

People paid to hear Lewis Grizzard.

 

If something is in the constitution, unless it is overridden by a subsequent amendment, it is constitutional.

Lol, Jesus Christ, this is basic 5th grade civics.

 

Did you even go that far? You're afraid to look at the evidence and want an instant answer. Yoiu're wrong and I won't play your game.

The 16th Amendment does not meet constitutional muster.

 

Even the United States Supreme Court disagrees with rahl:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

 

so you're saying the 2nd Amendment isn't part of the Constitution?

 

Lol, if it's part of the constitution, it's ****ing constitutional.


What the **** is wrong with you?

 

Legislation must conform the the constitution. An AMENDMENT changes the constitution. The 16th amendment changed the constitution, allowing a tax on income.

It is by definition, constitutional.

 

Conservatives don't consider Amendments to be Constitutional.

 

What in the HELL are you talking about? Okay, I'll disagree with you and remove my thanks. Will you then be happy?

Like removed. So, you don't like the Second Amendment. Anything else?

 

And the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment.

Additionally in 1955 Rosa Parks refused to obey the law. In Browder v Gayle, the United States Supreme Court found the laws were unconstitutional. So, your theory of law is wrong.

 

However, you do not understand the Constitution NOR the 16th Amendment and if you're too lazy to watch a freaking video, you don't have enough facts to debate the subject. Disbelief is not the basis to disprove anything.

 

That is a leap. I don't profess to know a lot about "conservatives." I believe in the Constitution as originally written and intended; I believe in the principles of Liberty.

So, if we disagree on some issues, we can't agree on others? Okay, got you. I removed my Like, but you are not qualified to tell me what I can or cannot believe in.