Look up the constitutional debates, look specifically what James Madison the so called "father" of the constitution thought about niggers and women voting. James Madison believed that only white, landowning men should be allowed to participate in government in any capacity. And that was the case for 100 years until jews started becoming senators, jews like Judah P Benjamin the leader of the confederate army.
If you are a constitutionalist who believes that the words are carved in stone and should not be amended any further than what our founding fathers and maybe 1 or two generations afterwards thought then how can you possibly defend women and niggers voting? The Senate should consist of 100% white, landowning men and nothing else.
>“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. ... unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...”
-- James Madison
and that is just one of many quotes I can pull from the debates. If you truly believe in SHALL NOT then you should be shouting from the rooftops to undo womens suffrage and to make sure no nigger, spic, pajeet, or chink ever gets to vote or hold a position of political influence again.
Jefferson wanted it rewritten every 20 years so future generations didn't live under the tyranny of the dead.
The constitution is dead and buried anyway. People only invoke it when convenient.
Parker Richardson
Jefferson was a nigger lover. I spit on Jefferson's opinion.
Austin Cruz
To an extent you do need to have it be able to be updated as mankind changes over time, but not to the extent that midwit retards and minorities gain any political power.
I.e. NIGGERS
Brandon Cruz
James Madison specifically states that he is 100%, vehemently against any sort of "innovation" he wanted the system to last for 1000 years completely unchanged.
Are you saying you know better than the FATHER of the constitution?
Nolan King
Your understanding of logic and rhetoric is weak.and your appeal to authroity is unbecoming of someone who claims to understand the constitution.
Julian King
>appeal to authority that's the entire point of being a constitutionalist either you are one or you aren't either the founding fathers knew best or they didn't either they created a flawed but the most perfect system yet known to man or they didn't
Robert Morgan
>Is there any point in the constitution Yes. It's the document that created the government and also the only document that limits the government. It's not dead, nor buried. The Constitution itself cannot be changed. However, it can be amended. In fact it was amended almost immediately after creation as most states refused to even consider it without those amendments.
The problem today is people fail to understand the full history involved, as well as fail to understand the true nature of the parties involved. They especially fail to understand the parties they involve themselves with personally. People fail to understand the authority they have and where the authority in government comes from and instead acquiescence to the whims of others who are typically acting outside the law. They even prefer it because it's "easier".
People must be able to understand the history of the nation, the history of mankind, and their own personal history. They must be able to understand how the law works and how it functions. And they must use that knowledge to take action within the law and exercise their authority.
Brody Martin
So only educated, somewhat intelligent people, should be allowed to participate in government as our founding fathers intended? Are you willing to say this outload in a crowded room? Scream it at the top of your lungs the same way a whore screams about her wish to abort her fetus?
Lucas Brown
*out loud
Julian Gomez
>look specifically what James Madison the so called "father" of the constitution thought about niggers and women voting. James Madison believed that only white, landowning men should be allowed to participate in government in any capacity. I already did believe that. I don’t need a particular figure of history to spell out why or have to appeal to. As for your dumb OP, you’ll notice how the document of the constitution already includes an amendment procedure. So whatever low iq gotcha angle you’re gunning for, besides preaching to crowd here, is already moot.
Lincoln Russell
It's already the case and doesn't need to be said. Talking and yelling and grumbling won't get results. Only action will.
Brayden Miller
Yes, actions like getting off your ass, getting some cardboard, making a sign and going to DC to protest as much as humanly possible. Preferably with as many other likeminded, red blooded, white men as possible.
But you won't do that because you don't truly believe what you are saying, at least not at a core, fundamental level.
Josiah Parker
>how can you possibly defend women and niggers voting? Wow you’re making a lot of assumptions about me
Gavin Hughes
Protesting also does nothing so yes, I won't do it. Protesting is just saying you disapprove or object to something that government is doing. That almost never actually stops the problem, unless the people acting have some shred of humanity left which is uncommon for politicians. What has to be done is to use your authority in law to actually stop the thing you disapprove of. There are many many different ways depending on what the issue is, but usually the only way people think is "voting". Voting can work, but voting doesn't stop unlawful actions at the hands of corrupt politicians.
Instead what I am doing is trying to encourage people to put some thought in to understanding the law and history leading up to the problems they're complaining about and to exercise their authority within the law. Until they step up and do that, nothing will ever change for the better and things will only get worse.
Henry Flores
Your ability to take cock and balls is strong and your faggotry love of shitskins is becoming of someone who pretends to understand the constitution.
Liam Carter
So how about something like pic related? If knowledge put into action through the use of fair and uncompromised elections then pic related is the answer do it all over the country, or even just all over a single state, one at a time
>only white, landowning men should be allowed to participate in government Before the industrial revolution, all economic activity ultimately came from agriculture and mining. The only people who paid any taxes then were land owners. To translate into today's sprache would be: >only TAXPAYERS should be allowed to participate in government
It's not women or niggers specifically that ruin voting, it's people who don't pay any taxes having any say in how the government is run. Disenfranchise all non-taxpayers and all leftist, liberal, progressive bullshit would disappear overnight.
In the late 1700s women and niggers could not own land It wasn't until 1848 that women could own land and even then it was only if they got it from their deceased husbands
Cameron Hall
The role of the Constitution is to limit the power of the government. If people who you don't want having influence over the government now do so, you clearly should be wanting to keep those protections afforded by the Constitution.
Ian Harris
Revolting is never the answer as it negates the entirety of all the controlling law. Violence can and has been used successfully, but should only be used as a last resort, when all lawful options have been exhausted. The biggest issue is that people want the violence without ever even considering the lawful options first. Doing that means you are no longer within the law and will be met with equal and greater force.
However, lawful action does need to be taken, all over the country ideally, but even a single congressional district can be beneficial. It's very possible for the people to hold officials accountable for their actions, but not a single person is doing it.
Austin Stewart
>In the late 1700s women and niggers could not own land People considered them like children. You don't give a child a fortune and let them do with it whatever they want. I would say a great many women and niggers ARE like children. But the proof is in the pudding. If they can make enough money to pay taxes, then they have a right to decide how those taxes are to be spent.
Are you sure "innovation" didn't just mean "change"? There were a lot of utopian bullshit ideas floating around back then. He wanted to stick with what was know to work in the past.
One flaw I noticed about the founding fathers was that they based their "democracy" (republic) on the ideals of ancient Greece. It's understandable. Over nearly 2000 years, there was moderate innovation, but most wealth was still ultimately derived from agriculture. They utterly failed to predict the industrial revolution, which started just 50 years later. They couldn't conceive of a small building making as much (real) economic productivity as several thousand acres of farm land.
It still goes back to TAXPAYER. When people who don't pay taxes get to vote on how the government spends money, then ruination is close at hand.
