[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: FLUSH: ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities Source: [None] URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva ... matic-weapons-in-large-cities/ Published: Nov 12, 2014 Author: Andrew Kirell Post Date: 2014-11-12 12:32:26 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 38078 Comments: 99 Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities. Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform. Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” Watch below, via TheBlaze: Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-15) not displayed.       .       .       . #16. To: misterwhite (#14) My point was that only "the people" were allowed to vote. And 99.9% of them were adult, white male citizens. What you actually said was: Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people". You were explicitly commenting upon the Constitution, not State laws on qualifications for State offices. The Second Amendment is organic law. It was a restriction on the delegation of power to the Federal government. It said "the people" and it did not exclude anyone from "the people" as you claim. The RKBA was a preexisting right, predating the Constitution, and was not something that flowed from the Constitution. The express restriction on the Federal government was unlimited, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms was never restricted to rich White people. Your fanciful imaginary rewrite of the Constitution has no basis in law or history. If such was Constitution in 1789, what amendment changed that and when did the change enter into force? What the States did was left to the States regarding voter qualifications for non-Federal offices. Notably, while many State laws prohibited women from voting prior to the 19th Amendment in 1920, the Constitution governed qualifications for Federal elections and women could not be barred from running for Federal office. Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated for President by the National Equal Rights Party in 1884 and gained ballot access in 6 States and received 4,149 recorded votes. Lockwood was the first woman to officially appear on the ballot. Note: Victoria Woodhull was nominated in 1872 but did not gain ballot access as she was only 34 years of age. What the Constitution says is not defined by what States may choose to do relative to matters under State purview. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-22   15:41:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: misterwhite (#15) Seems to me it's defining "the people" as "the voters". Seems to me you are really reaching. This means many citizens are not considered part of "the people." FYI, you cited an imaginary Executive Order on LP. http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349284&Disp=1#C1 #1. To: Ndcorup (#0) The 1986 law extended amnesty to illegal immigrants, but not to their spouses or children. Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same. (http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive- orders-2014-11) misterwhite posted on 2014-11-19 14:17:26 ET In Reagan's case, the Director of INS announced a policy change. If you desire to fact check, here are links for all Executive Orders issued by Reagan in 1986, 1987, and 1988. Happy hunting for a relevant Reagan Executive Order. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-22   16:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: nolu chan (#16) "The Second Amendment ... said "the people" and it did not exclude anyone from "the people" as you claim. Article I, Section 2 of this "organic law" reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and ..." Aren't children excluded from "the people" in Article I, Section 2? Women? Slaves? Foreigners? Non-freeholders? Yet you claim no one is excluded from "the people" in the second amendment. So you're saying "the people" means different things? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   17:11:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: nolu chan (#16) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms was never restricted to rich White people." Correct. But the second amendment protected that right from federal infringement for rich white men and no one else. State constitutions protected the right for others. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   17:15:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: nolu chan (#17) "Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read: Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   17:25:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: misterwhite (#18) Article I, Section 2 of this "organic law" reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and ..." Aren't children excluded from "the people" in Article I, Section 2? Women? Slaves? Foreigners? Non-freeholders? Yet you claim no one is excluded from "the people" in the second amendment. You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights. In some states, convicted felons cannot vote, in others they can. State regulation of voting rights does not define citizenship. The people of the nation are defined by the Federal government. The people of the nation are it's citizens. The Constitution was silent on voting rights until the 15th and 19th amendments. The people, the citizens, decided who would be allowed to vote. Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   13:51:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: misterwhite (#19) "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" expressly declared that there was no delegation of authority to the Federal goverment of the right to keep and bear arms already held by the people of America. The people of America existed before the Constitution. It was the citizenry. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   13:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: nolu chan (#21) "You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights." Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. Sure, there were some exceptions, but 99.9% of the voters were rich, white men, so that's what I used. Not every citizen was allowed to vote. Not even today. "Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America." I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Not all citizens can vote, even today, and back in 1789 they were only the rich white male citizens. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: nolu chan (#22) "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" expressly declared that there was no delegation of authority to the Federal goverment of the right to keep and bear arms already held by the people of America. The second amendment protects the existing right of "the people" (NOT all persons) to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. "The people" were the voters, and in 1792 they were the rich, white, male citizens. "The people of America existed before the Constitution. It was the citizenry." Well, yes, "the people" were citizens. But they also voted, and not all citizens voted back then. They still don't. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: misterwhite (#20) Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read: I'm not being picky. There was no Executive Order, memorandum or proclamation. Just because someone says something does not make it so. This readily fact-checkable information was echoed all around the internet by numerous people, not just by yourself. Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese wrote a memo and INS District Director Perry Rivkind anounced a policy change. It was an action made within the Executive branch but was not issued by President Reagan. Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." I will assume you have not read the "Reagan" memo/announcement. See this report from 1989 quoting the Meese memorandum. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-01-15/news/8901030372_1_nicaraguan-economy-foreign-policy-sandinistas Analysts Blaming Immigration Wave On Failed Policies January 15, 1989 By DON MELVIN, Staff Writer The Sun Sentinel [...] George Waldroup, deputy director of the Miami INS office, said the statement by INS District Director Perry Rivkind, "was taken out of context back then. What the statement was, was that he would not deport any Nicaraguan until the due process had been finalized under existing statute or regulation. Nicaraguans have been deported by this district. He did say it was against his moral consciousness to do so when you had a government there like it was." In July of 1987, Meese issued a memorandum directing INS to take a series of steps regarding Nicaraguans. "No Nicaraguan who has a well-founded fear of persecution will be deported in the absence of a finding by the Justice Department that the individual has either engaged in serious criminal activity or poses a danger to the national security," the memo read, according to Meissner. "Every qualified Nicaraguan seeking a work authorization will be entitled to one, and all INS officials are directed to encourage and expedite Nicaraguan applications for work authorizations." [snip] http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/ Obama Set to Unilaterally Reshape the Nation’s Immigration System Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….” In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which provided a general amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.” In fact, in 1987, then-Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens. In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. I assume the public at large has yet to read the Obama Executive Order as it has not yet been published to the public. It should be Executive Order 13862. All Executive Orders must be published in the Federal Register at this one, when it is published, should be available at this link. It is hard to say exactly what Obama is planning to do before the Executive Order is published. There have been indications that the unlawful deportable aliens will be given work permits and social security numbers. We already know that Obama lies about what his actions will do. On Obamacare, the bill had to be passed in order to find out what was in it. Then, the promise and forecast claims evaporated. The American people were Grubered. It is exceedingly difficult to see how Obama is planning to patch an unforeseen result of a recently enacted law -- seeing as how the piece of recently enacted law for Obama does not exist. The Senate legislation (S. 744) frequently cited by Obama was unconstitutional on its face. How much of this does Obama seek to enact by executive fiat? We have to wait to see the Executive Order. The Executive can not raise any funding without congressional authorization, and that must start in the House. The Dem immigration bill in the Senate, S. 744, passed 68-32 and died. It was "blue slipped" and never considered in the House. When, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, a Senate-introduced bill that raises revenue or appropriates money is passed by the Senate and sent to the House for its consideration, the House places a blue slip on the legislation that notes the House's constitutional prerogative and immediately returns it to the Senate without taking further action. This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic is historically to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip. It was an unconstitutional bill originated in the Senate and raising revenue. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00744:@@@S S. 744 Latest Title: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 4/16/2013) Cosponsors (7) Related Bills: H.R.5, H.R.490, H.R.1596, H.R.2270, H.R.2624, H.R.3130, H.R.3344, H.R.3431, H.R.3568, H.R.3914, H.R.4460, H.R.4951, H.R.4961, S.223, S.616, S.891, S.1889, S.2561, S.2781 Latest Major Action: 6/27/2013 Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 32. Record Vote Number: 168. Latest Action: 6/27/2013 Senate ordered measure printed as passed. Senate Reports: 113-40 For any who claim that obama can implement what is in this Bill without Congress, or that such actions do not required appropriation of funds, this is an 1198-page bill littered with appropriations. [46] 9 SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM FUNDS. 10 (a) COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM TRUST 11 FUND.— 12 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in 13 the Treasury a separate account, to be known as the 14 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund 15 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Trust Fund’’), 16 consisting of— 17 (A) amounts transferred from the general 18 fund of the Treasury under paragraph (2)(A); 19 and 20 (B) proceeds from the fees described in 21 paragraph (2)(B). 22 (2) DEPOSITS.— 23 (A) INITIAL FUNDING.—On the later of 24 the date of the enactment of this Act or Octo- 25 ber 1, 2013, $46,300,000,000 shall be trans- [47] 1 ferred from the general fund of the Treasury to 2 the Trust Fund. $46 billion here, and $46 billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. And, of course, U.S. Const., Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1, states, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." I suppose that because the House would not act to generate the 1198 pages, the Senate felt legally justified to do it themselves. They could not wait. It was an emergency. No, I'm serious about the emergency. See page 66, 1 (d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.— 2 (1) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR CONGRES- 3 SIONAL ENFORCEMENT.—In the Senate, amounts 4 appropriated by or deposited in the general fund of 5 the Treasury pursuant to this section are designated 6 as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 7 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the 8 concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 9 2010. 10 (2) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR STATUTORY 11 PAYGO.—Amounts appropriated by or deposited in 12 the general fund of the Treasury pursuant to this 13 section are designated as an emergency requirement 14 under section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 15 Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–139; 2 U.S.C. 16 933(g)). Examples of appropriations littered throughout the 1,198 pages of the bill. Under SEC. 1104. ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING BORDER SECURITY OPERATIONS which begins at page 82, one funds at page 86, 4 (4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 5 There is authorized to be appropriated for each of 6 fiscal years 2014 through 2018 such sums as may 7 be necessary to carry out this subsection. Under SEC. 1106. EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY which begins at page 92, we find on page 93, 10 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi- 11 tion to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated, 12 there is authorized to be appropriated to U.S. Customs 13 and Border Protection such sums as may be necessary to 14 carry out subsection (a) during fiscal years 2014 through 15 2018. At pages 505-506 we find Section 2541, we find, CHAPTER 3—FUNDING 18 SEC. 2541. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 19 (a) OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP AND NEW AMERI- 20 CANS.—In addition to any amounts otherwise made avail 21 able to the Office, there are authorized to be appropriated 22 to carry out the functions described in section 451(f)(2) 23 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 24 271(f)(2)), as amended by section 2511(b)— 25 (1) $10,000,000 for the 5-year period ending 26 on September 30, 2018; and 506 1 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 2 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years. 3 (b) GRANT PROGRAMS.—There are authorized to be 4 appropriated to implement the grant programs authorized 5 under sections 2537 and 2538, and to implement the 6 strategy under section 2539— 7 (1) $100,000,000 for the 5-year period ending 8 on September 30, 2018; and 9 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 10 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   14:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: nolu chan (#25) You're off topic. In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:52:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: misterwhite (#23) Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Think again. That idea is absolute blithering nonsense. The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. As the following official record shows, about half of the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreign born, aliens, had declared their intention to become citizens but had not yet become citizens. Under Wisconsin law they enjoyed the right to vote and all other privileges of citizens. But they were not citizens of the United States. According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States. http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cache/w/a/r/waro0123/00381.tif100.gif OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#26) In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:33:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: misterwhite (#24) "The people" were the voters, and in 1792 they were the rich, white, male citizens. The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:34:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: nolu chan (#29) "The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing." I didn't ask who were the "people of the United States". I asked you who were "the people". Article I, Section 2 refers to "the people". Who were they? In 1792 they weren't women or children, were they? They weren't slaves or foreigners. Who were they? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   17:06:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: nolu chan (#27) (Edited) "According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States." Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. The bottom line is that "the people" were not all persons or even all citizens. They were a select group who were allowed to vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   17:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: All (#29) I didn't ask who were the "people of the United States". I asked you who were "the people". Article I, Section 2 refers to "the people". Who were they? "The people" referred to by the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States were the people (citizens) of the United States, as opposed to the people of some other nation or other definitions derived from sampling Mr. White's blue ice. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   17:33:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: misterwhite (#31) "According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States." Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States? No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States. That's a Federal matter. Of course, one could be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State. If "voters" and "the people," are synonymous, and some States permitted aliens to be voters, alien voters would be among "the people" of the United States. Alternatively, if these voters were not among "the people" of the United States, then "voters" cannot be synonymous with "the people." nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   18:15:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: nolu chan (#32) "The people" referred to by the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States were the people (citizens) of the United States" Weren't women citizens? Article I, Section 2 says "the people" vote. Women didn't vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   14:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: nolu chan (#33) "No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States." Correct. "Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States?" That's correct. Wisconsin let those "aliens" vote because they were going to become citizens soon thereafter. So Wisconsin made an exception. But once again, you're citing exceptions to the rule then making some generalization. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   14:36:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: misterwhite (#34) Weren't women citizens? Article I, Section 2 says "the people" vote. Women didn't vote. Your fantasy remains without merit. See Minor v. Happersett SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875 ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus: The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1] "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 immunities 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." And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains: "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote." Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise. In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote. The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error. 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote. [snip] nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   17:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#35) you're citing exceptions You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   17:17:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: nolu chan (#37) "You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States." You're the one citing exceptions, not I. I told you why those aliens were allowed to vote. That one state, one time. I'll ask you one last time. Who were "the people" in Article I, Section 2? In other words, who was allowed to vote in 1792? If you refuse to answer, I'm done with you on this forum. I see no reason to have to ask a question multiple times. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   19:32:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: nolu chan (#37) "Your fantasy remains without merit." Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   19:35:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: misterwhite (#39) Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously insisted. Deal with it. I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. [...] There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: misterwhite (#38) I'll ask you one last time. Who were "the people" in Article I, Section 2? In other words, who was allowed to vote in 1792? If you refuse to answer, I'm done with you on this forum. I see no reason to have to ask a question multiple times. I have answered you multiple times. You just don't like the answer as supported by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion. C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:58:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#40) "I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. "It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution." The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You cited #1, 2, and 3. You left off 4, 5, and 6. Why? Oh, I see why. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such a state women have no right to vote. So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   20:26:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: misterwhite (#42) Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. [...] So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? No, and please stop being deliberately obtuse. I have no idea why you keep citing 1792. The Constitutional government took effect when George Washington was inaugurated in March 1789 and a new union of eleven states came into being. Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote. That was a power held by the States prior to the Constitution and not delegated to the Federal government. The Federal government has been delegated the authority to stop discrimination on the basis of race or sex, and to require State due process of law. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. [...] The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Still, to this day, the Constitution does not grant any right to vote for delegates to the Electoral College for President. See Bush v. Gore (2000) The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex. See Pennsylvania constitution of 1776: VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or be elected into office. Massachusetts constitution of 1780: ART. IX. All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments. New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1792 (amending Constitution of 1784) Art. 7. The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. Art. 11. All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications has equal right to elect and be elected into office. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   21:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: nolu chan (#43) "I have no idea why you keep citing 1792." That will become apparent when we get over this issue first. "Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote." We agree. Stop bringing it up. "Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex." Today. But not back in 1792. Why are you citing all this irrelevant crap? Article I, Section 2 reads that "the people" vote. According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. You still disagree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:32:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: nolu chan (#41) You're defining a citizen. That could be a man, woman, or child. I asked you who were the voters -- "the people" -- in Article I, Section 2. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#44) According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. Complete unsupported nonsense. http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/ American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776)) [...] Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.)) [...] Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111)) 60 U.S. 575-576 The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows: "The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected. On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the Page 60 U. S. 576 privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States. Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship? That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but, in at least five of the States, they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   15:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: misterwhite (#45) You're defining a citizen. That could be a man, woman, or child. I asked you who were the voters -- "the people" -- in Article I, Section 2. The premise of your question is nonsense. The voters are not "the people." The voters are whomever the state government decides them to be. That can be any subset of "the people" and may and has even included aliens, citizens of foreign nations. Federal law prohibits discriminating against certain subsets of the people to inhibit such right of suffrage which the State may choose to grant to others. The people are the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. The original citizens "were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain." 88 U.S. 166. Articles of Confederation, Article IV The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.... 60 US 575 On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged.... nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   16:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: nolu chan (#46) In one state. And not all women. And there were prerequisites. If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:31:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: nolu chan (#47) "The voters are whomever the state government decides them to be." Correct. And those are "the people". "The people are the C-I-T-I-Z-E- N-S." "The people" were citizens with full rights. Only "the people" could vote. Not all citizens could vote. Are you claiming that they could? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: misterwhite (#48) If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? For possible penetration of what I actually said: 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.... The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that no right of suffrage is conferred by being a citizen of the United States, per the Constitution of the United States. Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey. The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 13th Amendment was needed to prohibit slavery which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 15th Amendment was needed to prohibit race discrimination which was not prohibited by the original Constitution. The 26th Amendment holds, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." Minors under the age of 18 years are citizens. Those from 18 to 21 were citizens before the 26th Amendment. All of those citizens were of the people of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:25:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: misterwhite (#49) "The people" were citizens with full rights. Only "the people" could vote. Not all citizens could vote. Your nonsense is based a a false premise. Not all citizens had all the rights held by others. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one The people of the nation were not defined by all the differing State laws. The right to vote was not a Constitutional right. The Constitution did not confer that right to anyone. The people of the nation were its C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. 88 US 162, 166 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain My source is the U.S. Supreme Court. Yours appears to be some wingnut website you are too ashamed to cite. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#49) Ok they gave women the right to vote with the 19th amendment. Or maybe they already had it. But let me add this. The constitution refers to who is elibible to be President. It only says "he". It never says she. So technically a woman isn't eligible to run for President. There is no amendment changing that. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-26   17:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: A K A Stone (#52) Ok they gave women the right to vote with the 19th amendment. Or maybe they already had it. No, they did not give women the right to vote with the 19th Amendment. The prohibited the States from prohibiting voting based upon sex. For example, nobody has the right to vote for Presidential electors unless the State decides to grant such right. From Bush v Gore: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. The right to vote is determined by State law. The Federal law prohibits certain forms of discrimination in the applicable State laws. The constitution refers to who is elibible to be President. It only says "he". It never says she. So technically a woman isn't eligible to run for President. There is no amendment changing that. Common English usage provides that the masculine pronoun is used when a group includes both sexes. There is no question that women are eligible to run for President. A woman has already run for President, been officially on the ballot of several states, and received votes. The Constitution set the requirements for who could run and did not prohibit women. It requires one to be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident in the U.S. Belva Ann Lockwood was officially on ballots in 1884, decades before the 19th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belva_Ann_Lockwood Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (October 24, 1830 – May 19, 1917) was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author. She was active in working for women's rights. The press of her day referred to her as a "suffragist," someone who believed in women's suffrage or voting rights. Lockwood overcame many social and personal obstacles related to gender restrictions. After college, she became a teacher and principal, working to equalize pay for women in education.[1] She supported the movement for world peace, and was a proponent of temperance. Lockwood graduated from law school in Washington, D.C. and became one of the first female lawyers in the United States. In 1879, she successfully petitioned Congress to be allowed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first woman attorney given this privilege. Lockwood ran for president in 1884 and 1888 on the ticket of the National Equal Rights Party and was the first woman to appear on official ballots.[2] http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/98-Lockwood In 1884 she accepted the nomination of the National Equal Rights Party and ran for president. Although suffrage leaders opposed her candidacy, Lockwood saw it as an entering wedge for women. She polled over 4,000 votes and ran again in 1888. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated for President by the National Equal Rights Party in 1884 and gained ballot access in 6 States and received 4,149 recorded votes. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: nolu chan (#50) "Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey." Some did. "The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution." The 19th protected the right of women to vote. Prior to that, they couldn't vote in all the states. Are you saying women could vote in all the states in 1792? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:29:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: nolu chan (#51) "Not all citizens had all the rights held by others." I'm only discussing one right now -- the right to vote. Could women vote in all the states in 1792? Why won't you answer this very simple question? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:31:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: misterwhite (#54) The 19th protected the right of women to vote. More nonsense. Neither women, nor men, had a right to vote. Our rights are not granted to us by State governments. The 19th Amendment does not protect a right. It prohibits the States from discriminating on the basis of sex in laws passed that determine who is a qualified voter. The State government can equally deny men and women the "right" to vote in a presidential election. They can choose to have the legislature select the delegates to the Electoral College. Alternatively, the State legislature could appoint the Statehouse janitor to select the delegates. The State Legislature has plenary authority for that election. What law they pass cannot say the men can vote but not women or that Whites can vote but not Blacks. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:59:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (57 - 99) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com