moonbattery logo

Jul 24 2014

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Calls Constitution “Flawed”

We rely on the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution from the endless assaults on it that chip away our liberty. Too bad Supreme Court Justices don’t have a higher opinion of the document. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has denounced it, recommending instead the socialist constitution of South Africa. The odious Stephen Breyer appears to attack it at every opportunity (e.g., here, here, and here). Now we hear this from swing vote Anthony Kennedy:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking at the annual conference of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Monterey, waxed eloquent on the deficiencies of the Constitution and implied that those who believe in the original intent of the Constitution by swearing fealty to the original, literal meaning are misguided.

Most of Kennedy’s nearly hour-long speech focused on the Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215 and due for its 800th anniversary next year. But he couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the Constitution, noting, “The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” its “thinly veiled language… basically reaffirmed the legality of slavery.” Kennedy was referencing the section of the Constitution in which each slave was defined as three-fifths of a person in the estimation of how many congressional delegates each state was allotted. He added that the soldiers who died in the Civil War were “one of the things it cost for having a Constitution that was flawed.”

At the time the Constitution was written, the economy of the southern states was totally reliant on slave labor. A constitution forbidding slavery would never have held the nation together, because no southern state would have agreed to it.

As liberals tend to forget, slavery was a nearly ubiquitous feature of civilization throughout the world until it was largely ended by Anglo-Saxons in the 19th century, the British navy playing a major role.

Presenting a constitution forbidding slavery in 18th century America would have been a waste of everyone’s time.

That doesn’t mean the Constitution is flawed. It means that it sometimes needs to be amended to keep pace with changing times — as it has been. This is a relatively superficial process, very different from proclaiming the whole thing to be flawed and rejecting it in favor of a “living constitution” that says whatever the prevailing majority wants it to say at any given moment.

Unsurprisingly, the main person the Supremes need to defend the Constitution against also regards it as “deeply flawed.”

On a tip from Henry.



58 Responses to “Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Calls Constitution “Flawed””

  1. Mr. Mentalo says:

    Is anyone besides me getting sick of this “game of chance” thing going on? Elections, court decisions…it’s all coming down to “what’s the final score?” It’s like standing at a crap table and hoping things don’t come up snake-eyes.

    This isn’t a G-D game show. It’s our lives and our country and our way of life, and it all hinges on “do we have enough points to win”.

    It’s about time we took back the country, restored the Constitution and the rule of law, stopped using regulations and the judicial system as a weapon and LIVE LIKE FREEMEN AGAIN.

  2. Mr. Mentalo says:

    Is anyone besides me getting sick of this “game of chance” thing going on? Elections, court decisions…it’s all coming down to “what’s the final score?” It’s like standing at a crap table and hoping things don’t come up snake-eyes.

    This isn’t a G-D game show. It’s our lives and our country and our way of life, and it all hinges on “do we have enough points to win”.

    It’s about time we took back the country, restored the Constitution and the rule of law, stopped using regulations and the judicial system as a weapon and LIVE LIKE FREEMEN AGAIN.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    There is nothing controversial about that. The Constitution IS flawed. It is just ink on paper, written by flawed men, doing the best they could. That’s why we have an amendment procedure. And the thin language of the Constitution was intentional because the federal government had no power to regulate slavery, that was a state power.

    The worst flaw in teh constitution was that there was no superior enforcement body. The Constitution expected the three branches of the federal government to be checking and balancing each other and the states to further check and balance. It never envisioned surviving with all branches working together to create new powers for themselves, including the Supreme Court granting to itself the power to interpret the Constitution, when the Constitution is clearly OVER the courts, not the other way around.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    There is nothing controversial about that. The Constitution IS flawed. It is just ink on paper, written by flawed men, doing the best they could. That’s why we have an amendment procedure. And the thin language of the Constitution was intentional because the federal government had no power to regulate slavery, that was a state power.

    The worst flaw in teh constitution was that there was no superior enforcement body. The Constitution expected the three branches of the federal government to be checking and balancing each other and the states to further check and balance. It never envisioned surviving with all branches working together to create new powers for themselves, including the Supreme Court granting to itself the power to interpret the Constitution, when the Constitution is clearly OVER the courts, not the other way around.

  5. KHarn says:

    Slavery was legal in EVERY state when the Constitution was ratified. The south wanted slaves counted as “whole” persons, the north was against it because they wanted power over the federal government (Which they won due to the “civil war”). The 3/5s was a compromise. Several southern states (Led by Virginia) wanted to ban the slave trade, but was blocked by New England which depended on it as part of their international trade. Again the SOUTH compromised by letting the slave trade go on until 1808.
    .
    The only “flaw” in the US Constitution is that it was not written so even a MORON could understand it!

  6. KHarn says:

    Slavery was legal in EVERY state when the Constitution was ratified. The south wanted slaves counted as “whole” persons, the north was against it because they wanted power over the federal government (Which they won due to the “civil war”). The 3/5s was a compromise. Several southern states (Led by Virginia) wanted to ban the slave trade, but was blocked by New England which depended on it as part of their international trade. Again the SOUTH compromised by letting the slave trade go on until 1808.
    .
    The only “flaw” in the US Constitution is that it was not written so even a MORON could understand it!

  7. formwiz says:

    We kind of knew he saw it that way.

  8. formwiz says:

    We kind of knew he saw it that way.

  9. octa bright says:

    If Justice Kennedy disapproves of the constitution he should run for a seat in the legislature. The judiciary’s job is to interpret the Constitution, not to either judge it or change it. Any judge who does not accept that should resign, retire, or be removed from office.

  10. octa bright says:

    If Justice Kennedy disapproves of the constitution he should run for a seat in the legislature. The judiciary’s job is to interpret the Constitution, not to either judge it or change it. Any judge who does not accept that should resign, retire, or be removed from office.

  11. IOpian says:

    The critics of the Constitution, seeing it as flawed, presume to be as brilliant as the framers with only an iota of empirical knowledge of tyrannical authority. What they often choose to overlook is that the framers were aware they couldn’t devise a one-size-fits-all solution to governance, which is what these critics pose as their premise to criticism. Instead the document provided adaptive measure that allowed it to be amended with the times but not frivolously. That’s why we have a Republic and not a Democracy beholding to the tyranny of the majority. A lynch mob, is after all, democratic. Slavery has been banned and codified, suffrage is more universal and codified. I would challenge any of these ‘self-assured of their own brilliance’ modern critics to come up with another document that could survive over two centuries.

  12. IOpian says:

    The critics of the Constitution, seeing it as flawed, presume to be as brilliant as the framers with only an iota of empirical knowledge of tyrannical authority. What they often choose to overlook is that the framers were aware they couldn’t devise a one-size-fits-all solution to governance, which is what these critics pose as their premise to criticism. Instead the document provided adaptive measure that allowed it to be amended with the times but not frivolously. That’s why we have a Republic and not a Democracy beholding to the tyranny of the majority. A lynch mob, is after all, democratic. Slavery has been banned and codified, suffrage is more universal and codified. I would challenge any of these ‘self-assured of their own brilliance’ modern critics to come up with another document that could survive over two centuries.

  13. . says:

    Apparently this dolt is unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment.

  14. . says:

    Apparently this dolt is unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment.

  15. Beef says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the ‘flaw’ Justice Kennedy referenced was addressed with an amendment 150 years ago.

  16. Beef says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the ‘flaw’ Justice Kennedy referenced was addressed with an amendment 150 years ago.

  17. CherryAnn1000 says:

    This man is another good reason for term limits for SC justices.

  18. CherryAnn1000 says:

    This man is another good reason for term limits for SC justices.

  19. 762x51 says:

    “waxed eloquent on the deficiencies
    of the Constitution and implied that those who believe in the original
    intent of the Constitution by swearing fealty to the original, literal
    meaning are misguided.”

    Original intent is EVERYTHING when interpreting a law whether it is the Constitution or some state statue or municipal ordinance. If the legislative body who enacted the law under scrutiny meant x in their original intent they an interpretation of y is not in the scope of what the law covered.

    But then you can’t look to original intent of the framers AND implement the progressive agenda, the two are mutually exclusive concepts.

    Liberty v. Totalitarianism.

    The real America, the one envisioned by the founders and operated by people who still understand what they intended is down to about 5 or 6 states now. Any fool that still thinks the courts can get them out of this situation is all ready dead. Liberty hangs by a thread named Kennedy, we are doomed.

  20. 762x51 says:

    “waxed eloquent on the deficiencies
    of the Constitution and implied that those who believe in the original
    intent of the Constitution by swearing fealty to the original, literal
    meaning are misguided.”

    Original intent is EVERYTHING when interpreting a law whether it is the Constitution or some state statue or municipal ordinance. If the legislative body who enacted the law under scrutiny meant x in their original intent they an interpretation of y is not in the scope of what the law covered.

    But then you can’t look to original intent of the framers AND implement the progressive agenda, the two are mutually exclusive concepts.

    Liberty v. Totalitarianism.

    The real America, the one envisioned by the founders and operated by people who still understand what they intended is down to about 5 or 6 states now. Any fool that still thinks the courts can get them out of this situation is all ready dead. Liberty hangs by a thread named Kennedy, we are doomed.

  21. 762x51 says:

    It is actually WAAAAY past time for that and may in fact be too late to stop the spread of totalitarianism. Communism wins by inaction on the part of so called Americans who are too busy watching the Kardashians or MTV. Fools who refuse to focus on the real problems because that are lazy cowards who deserve neither wealth nor liberty.

  22. 762x51 says:

    It is actually WAAAAY past time for that and may in fact be too late to stop the spread of totalitarianism. Communism wins by inaction on the part of so called Americans who are too busy watching the Kardashians or MTV. Fools who refuse to focus on the real problems because that are lazy cowards who deserve neither wealth nor liberty.

  23. Joe says:

    Do these dolts think the country they would build from nothing would ever last 250 years and become the most powerful country in the history of the world?
    Their’s would crumble and fall within 50 years, and would pretty much suck from day one.
    If you hate America so much, get the fuck out. It’s a big world, find your place somewhere else.

  24. Joe says:

    Do these dolts think the country they would build from nothing would ever last 250 years and become the most powerful country in the history of the world?
    Their’s would crumble and fall within 50 years, and would pretty much suck from day one.
    If you hate America so much, get the fuck out. It’s a big world, find your place somewhere else.

  25. artfuldgr says:

    So supreme court justice kenedy, a man with a degree, has never read about Frederick Douglas?

    Frederick Douglas gave a 16 page speech in Scotland on that very subject.

    The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?
    Frederick Douglass / Glasgow, Scotland March 26, 1860

    May i also say that ex slave Douglas is much better educated and well spoken than Justice Kennedy.

    i suggest finding the speech, printing it out, and sending a copy to the Justice.

    first let me state what is not the question. It is not whether slavery
    existed in the United States at the time of the adoption of the
    Constitution; it is not whether slaveholders took part in the framing of
    the Constitution; it is not whether those slaveholders, in their
    hearts, intended to secure certain advantages in that instrument for
    slavery; it is not whether the American Government has been wielded
    during seventy-two years in favour of the propagation and permanence of
    slavery; it is not whether a pro-slavery interpretation has been put
    upon the Constitution by the American Courts — all these points may be
    true or they may be false, they may be accepted or they may be rejected,
    without in any wise affecting the real question in debate. The real and
    exact question between myself and the class of persons represented by
    the speech at the City Hall may be fairly stated thus: — 1st, Does the
    United States Constitution guarantee to any class or description of
    people in that country the right to enslave, or hold as property, any
    other class or description of people in that country? 2nd, Is the
    dissolution of the union between the slave and free States required by
    fidelity to the slaves, or by the just demands of conscience? Or, in
    other words, is the refusal to exercise the elective franchise, and to
    hold office in America, the surest, wisest, and best way to abolish
    slavery in America?

  26. Artfuldgr says:

    So supreme court justice kenedy, a man with a degree, has never read about Frederick Douglas?

    Frederick Douglas gave a 16 page speech in Scotland on that very subject.

    The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?
    Frederick Douglass / Glasgow, Scotland March 26, 1860

    May i also say that ex slave Douglas is much better educated and well spoken than Justice Kennedy.

    i suggest finding the speech, printing it out, and sending a copy to the Justice.

    first let me state what is not the question. It is not whether slavery
    existed in the United States at the time of the adoption of the
    Constitution; it is not whether slaveholders took part in the framing of
    the Constitution; it is not whether those slaveholders, in their
    hearts, intended to secure certain advantages in that instrument for
    slavery; it is not whether the American Government has been wielded
    during seventy-two years in favour of the propagation and permanence of
    slavery; it is not whether a pro-slavery interpretation has been put
    upon the Constitution by the American Courts — all these points may be
    true or they may be false, they may be accepted or they may be rejected,
    without in any wise affecting the real question in debate. The real and
    exact question between myself and the class of persons represented by
    the speech at the City Hall may be fairly stated thus: — 1st, Does the
    United States Constitution guarantee to any class or description of
    people in that country the right to enslave, or hold as property, any
    other class or description of people in that country? 2nd, Is the
    dissolution of the union between the slave and free States required by
    fidelity to the slaves, or by the just demands of conscience? Or, in
    other words, is the refusal to exercise the elective franchise, and to
    hold office in America, the surest, wisest, and best way to abolish
    slavery in America?

  27. artfuldgr says:

    forgot to point out, that if you want to label kennedy correctly
    he is “Garrisonian”

    William Lloyd Garrison / as a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, suffragist, and social reformer. He is best known as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, which he founded in 1831 and published in Massachusetts until slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment after the American Civil War. He was one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society. He promoted “immediate emancipation” of slaves in the United States. In the 1870s, Garrison became a prominent voice for the woman suffrage movement.

    Garrison became famous as one of the most articulate, as well as most
    radical, opponents of slavery. His approach to emancipation stressed
    “moral suasion,” non-violence, and passive resistance. While some other
    abolitionists of the time favored gradual emancipation, Garrison argued
    for “immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves.” On July 4,
    1854, he publicly burned a copy of the Constitution, condemning it as “a
    Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell,” referring to the
    compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution. In 1855, his eight-year alliance with Frederick Douglass disintegrated when Douglass converted to political abolitionists’ view that the document could be interpreted as being anti-slavery.

    my commentary:

    Douglass was much better educated…

    he realized that IF the constitution was not written the way it was, there would have been no america to speak of. it would never have been ratified, there would not be a country – but a colony of england or france..

    its easy for the Garrisonians to argue as they were arguing AFTER the creation of the state, and the document. they do not care nor realize that without that document, they would not have had the freedom to argue its destruction, and would have and now be, slaves of england until sometime post wilberforce.

  28. Artfuldgr says:

    forgot to point out, that if you want to label kennedy correctly
    he is “Garrisonian”

    William Lloyd Garrison / as a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, suffragist, and social reformer. He is best known as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, which he founded in 1831 and published in Massachusetts until slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment after the American Civil War. He was one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society. He promoted “immediate emancipation” of slaves in the United States. In the 1870s, Garrison became a prominent voice for the woman suffrage movement.

    Garrison became famous as one of the most articulate, as well as most
    radical, opponents of slavery. His approach to emancipation stressed
    “moral suasion,” non-violence, and passive resistance. While some other
    abolitionists of the time favored gradual emancipation, Garrison argued
    for “immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves.” On July 4,
    1854, he publicly burned a copy of the Constitution, condemning it as “a
    Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell,” referring to the
    compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution. In 1855, his eight-year alliance with Frederick Douglass disintegrated when Douglass converted to political abolitionists’ view that the document could be interpreted as being anti-slavery.

    my commentary:

    Douglass was much better educated…

    he realized that IF the constitution was not written the way it was, there would have been no america to speak of. it would never have been ratified, there would not be a country – but a colony of england or france..

    its easy for the Garrisonians to argue as they were arguing AFTER the creation of the state, and the document. they do not care nor realize that without that document, they would not have had the freedom to argue its destruction, and would have and now be, slaves of england until sometime post wilberforce.

  29. Appalled By The World says:

    Exactly my thought! The Constitution is flawed only in that it allows the Left to twist it for its own ends. These haters should go to some small 3rd World dump and conduct their experiment there-if it works (and it won’t) then come on back and try it. Otherwise, leave and don’t come back!

  30. Appalled By The World says:

    Exactly my thought! The Constitution is flawed only in that it allows the Left to twist it for its own ends. These haters should go to some small 3rd World dump and conduct their experiment there-if it works (and it won’t) then come on back and try it. Otherwise, leave and don’t come back!

  31. Son_of_Taz says:

    Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is deeply flawed.

  32. Eddie_Valiant says:

    Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is deeply flawed.

  33. Eric says:

    As long as they don’t fuck with the second. Go ahead “Supremes”. Congress shall pass no law……

  34. Eric says:

    As long as they don’t fuck with the second. Go ahead “Supremes”. Congress shall pass no law……

  35. Henry says:

    That doesn’t sound like “support and defend” to me…

  36. Henry says:

    That doesn’t sound like “support and defend” to me…

  37. Mr. Freemarket says:

    That is when our founding document kicks in.

    “….That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”

    The folks in DC should remember that the Constitution isn’t the first form of self government that we tried. If they aren’t bound, the day will come that we, the people, won’t be bound, either.

  38. Mr. Freemarket says:

    That is when our founding document kicks in.

    “….That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”

    The folks in DC should remember that the Constitution isn’t the first form of self government that we tried. If they aren’t bound, the day will come that we, the people, won’t be bound, either.

  39. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Here’s a question:

    Has communism ever been able to take over a people who were armed? Of course some in the government would love to disarm us…….that’s not going to happen.

  40. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Here’s a question:

    Has communism ever been able to take over a people who were armed? Of course some in the government would love to disarm us…….that’s not going to happen.

  41. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Isn’t it interesting that Progressives can point to all sorts of countries that they idolize, and want to make our country more like other countries.

    Conservatives, however, have no country to point to and say “we want to be more free, just like __________.

  42. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Isn’t it interesting that Progressives can point to all sorts of countries that they idolize, and want to make our country more like other countries.

    Conservatives, however, have no country to point to and say “we want to be more free, just like __________.

  43. TED says:

    It’s TIME Kennedy found a NEW job. He obviously can’t handle the one he has!

  44. TED says:

    It’s TIME Kennedy found a NEW job. He obviously can’t handle the one he has!

    LIKE HIS BOSS.

    http://alltherightsnark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Crapping-on-the-Flag.jpg

  45. sandhillguy says:

    Not this year, please.

  46. sandhillguy says:

    Not this year, please.

  47. Guest says:

    The worst flaw, the fatal flaw, in the U.S. Constitution is its lack of acknowledgement of a superior moral authority. It expects an enduring Liberty severed from moral virtue and the truth that makes and keeps us free. The intentional elevation of Constitutional law over universal/natural law is responsible for the growing violations of natural law, attacks on fundamental liberties, and the “Constitutionality” of laws that directly oppose universal moral law — to wit, calling “lawful” the cosmic crime of taking of innocent human life. The deliberate Secularism/Godlessness of the Constitution is our undoing. Liberty cannot be sustained apart from Truth.

  48. Guest says:

    The worst flaw, the fatal flaw, in the U.S. Constitution is its lack of acknowledgement of a superior moral authority. It expects an enduring Liberty severed from moral virtue and the truth that makes and keeps us free. The intentional elevation of Constitutional law over universal/natural law is responsible for the growing violations of natural law, attacks on fundamental liberties, and the “Constitutionality” of laws that directly oppose universal moral law — to wit, calling “lawful” the cosmic crime of taking of innocent human life. The deliberate Secularism/Godlessness of the Constitution is our undoing. Liberty cannot be sustained apart from Truth.

  49. Commissar Kirov says:

    These idiots are incapable of appreciating the genius of the Constitution. The principles allowed an end to slavery. Where else but America would the majority endure the struggle to secure the rights of minority? We have the second oldest continuous form of government in the world. France changes its form of government once every three years if one looks at its history since WW2. Russia doesn’t change its form of government so much as murder them. Mexico has no government.
    We need to eliminate the court system, at the very least limit the justices to a single 5 year term of service and allow 30 states to override any SCOTUS decision, two over rides in a five year period would remove any judge voting in favor of an overturned measure twice. Also limit the scope and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to those powers mentioned specifically in the Constitution. No EPA, queer marriage, abortion, etc.
    In fact hang the losers who keep quoting the constitution of North Korea. Its the least we can do for them.

  50. Commissar Kirov says:

    These idiots are incapable of appreciating the genius of the Constitution. The principles allowed an end to slavery. Where else but America would the majority endure the struggle to secure the rights of minority? We have the second oldest continuous form of government in the world. France changes its form of government once every three years if one looks at its history since WW2. Russia doesn’t change its form of government so much as murder them. Mexico has no government.
    We need to eliminate the court system, at the very least limit the justices to a single 5 year term of service and allow 30 states to override any SCOTUS decision, two over rides in a five year period would remove any judge voting in favor of an overturned measure twice. Also limit the scope and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to those powers mentioned specifically in the Constitution. No EPA, queer marriage, abortion, etc.
    In fact hang the losers who keep quoting the constitution of North Korea. Its the least we can do for them.

  51. Commissar Kirov says:

    Unfortunately the answer is yes. Russian suffered through the civil war and endless limited wars through the 20s. Communism just finds it easier to consolidate its power against sheep. And most Americans are sheep.

  52. Commissar Kirov says:

    Unfortunately the answer is yes. Russian suffered through the civil war and endless limited wars through the 20s. Communism just finds it easier to consolidate its power against sheep. And most Americans are sheep.

  53. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Looks like most guns were confiscated from non-Communists.

    http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

    “The first Soviet gun controls were imposed during the Russian Civil War, as Czarists, Western troops, and national independence movements battled the central Red regime. Firearm registration was introduced on April 1, 1918. [13] On August 30, Fanny Kaplan supposedly wounded Lenin during an assassination attempt; the attempted assassination spurred a nationwide reign of terror. [14] In October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the government) ordered the surrender of all firearms, ammunition, and sabres. [15] As has been the case in almost every nation where firearms registration has been introduced, registration proved a prelude to confiscation. Exempt from the confiscation order, however, were members of the Communist Party. [16]”

  54. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Looks like most guns were confiscated from non-Communists.

    http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

    “The first Soviet gun controls were imposed during the Russian Civil War, as Czarists, Western troops, and national independence movements battled the central Red regime. Firearm registration was introduced on April 1, 1918. [13] On August 30, Fanny Kaplan supposedly wounded Lenin during an assassination attempt; the attempted assassination spurred a nationwide reign of terror. [14] In October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the government) ordered the surrender of all firearms, ammunition, and sabres. [15] As has been the case in almost every nation where firearms registration has been introduced, registration proved a prelude to confiscation. Exempt from the confiscation order, however, were members of the Communist Party. [16]”

  55. jack_foobar says:

    Let’s see them turn his right to life and property into a living breathing changeable contract, and see how fast that dipshit changes his tune.

  56. Damien_Son_of_Hussein says:

    Let’s see them turn his right to life and property into a living breathing changeable contract, and see how fast that dipshit changes his tune.

  57. RJ Chesnut Jr. says:

    As long as the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments remain in the Constitution, it is a flawed document.

  58. RJ Chesnut Jr. says:

    As long as the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments remain in the Constitution, it is a flawed document.


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy