General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
The Humanist Report
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

This is not a big deal. This has always been the case. The EC voters can go against the voters if they want. There were some states that were looking at changing their EC votes to who won overall. For example, if Nebraska had voters supporting Trump, but Biden won the EC votes overall, NE would change to give their EC votes to Biden.
2
The SC is doing their actual job, getting us to follow the Constitution.
2
@austinhernandez2716 from Cornell Law "The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."
2
@themartialartsapproach8786 the federal government has limited powers. Their powers are limited to foreign affairs and commerce between states. So no, states will not become foreign nations. As for worker protections, there are arguments for and against them. On almost all issues there are objective and subjective sides to them. That is why there are state rights to begin with. It lets the people decide on subjective issues. You may be living in CA and feel the people in AL are messed up, but you don't live there, you don't pay taxes there, you don't vote there. Take the recent protests on Roe v Wade. You see them mainly in blue states that allow abortions. You aren't seeing them in states like MS and AL. Consider that.
2
@josephheston9238 the 14th amendment says what?
2
@chrishakala528 people have more power at the state level, and if you don't like your state government you can move. It is that simple. A problem is that we have people looking at other states feeling the people are being oppressed when they aren't. Take abortion. People complain about abortion laws in MS, some that were passed recently. However, more women voted in the last election compared to men. So you have outsiders in blue states feeling that MS is taking away women rights when more women voted in MS, thus the law is what they want.
2
@Rae Tavia I did, you are all over the place.
2
@stilllearning6958 protect freedom of speech, religion, etc.
2
@stilllearning6958 the ninth amendment has been argued many times and most lawyers and judges do not fully understand its meaning. Thus, it has not been used as a central amendment in any case. So you have to consider that.
2
@Rae Tavia ok, on the right to bear arms. I addressed that. The SC defined what arms are and they stated they were guns. Also, arms meant guns at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment. I explained that to you, you just don't like the answer.
2
@Rae Tavia the states can't. The SC defines what an arm is and the states have to follow the constitution.
2
@cammybaby01 marriage laws are state laws. So yes, a state can refuse to recognize marriage. As for outlawing eating that would violate the right to life and pursuit happiness. And a state forcing people to not leave their home is imprisoning people without due process.
2
@melgibson7313 it is arguably how it works. The 9th amendment has been argued a lot but has never been used as the centralized amendment in any case.
2
It will be dems in mostly blue states, so nothing will change.
1
We never did.
1
@Cool Cat I have read it.
1
@MrEdIsTheSource Roe v Wade is one. Where in the Constitution is abortion mentioned? Nowhere. Thus it becomes a state issue.
1
@camwyn256 separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
1
@JamieRobles1 again, abortion is not in the Constitution, so it is a state issue.
1
@notsure8513 nowhere, thus it becomes a state issue. That is why there is no federal ban on an abortion. It goes both ways.
1
@theoford753 there is. The Constitution lays out the role of the federal government, and if it is not listed there it goes to the state.
1
@austinhernandez2716 it does. In article III.
1
@austinhernandez2716 I would be in favor of the Constitution. In 1850 you are correct, slavery was not in the Constitution. Thus it becomes a state issue. But that changed. How? There is a way to change the Constitution and that is what happened. Funny part is if you as about my position on abortion and held a gun to my head demanding what I feel should be the law I would say rare, safe and legal. However, I put my principle over what I think should be the law. Thus, I support overturning Roe v Wade and leaving the issue to the states.
1
@austinhernandez2716 or take the recent court ruling on allowing the coach to pray on the field. I support the ruling. I would be honest, I find what he is doing to be annoying. Same in that I find people kneeling during the national anthem to be annoying. In both cases I feel those individuals should not be doing that. However, they have a constitutional right to do that and I support that above me being annoyed by their actions. The Constitution is the standard to go by to limit government. Without we would have a fascist government.
1
@austinhernandez2716 the SC did not. it is written in the Constitution what their duties are. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." The 9th amendment is an elephant in the room, I would agree. However, the challenge is that if you want to refer to that then murdering people is a right, or driving drunk is a right. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion. And a woman has control over her body. They decided to have sex. So there is that.
1
@theoford753 what?
1
@melgibson7313 yet I am the one quoting it.
1
@JanglesPrime999 there is a way to change the Constitution. I value standards and limits on the government. As for experts, it is a reason why we have a Constitution. Experts can be corrupt as well and do awful things. For example, look up what experts being the doctors and scientists in Japan did during WWII. Do you support what they did to the Chinese? By your standard you do as they were experts.
1
@austinhernandez2716 what does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution? I care about standards. Without them you can have government doing things you feel is correct, but then a lot of things that are awful. For example, without freedom of speech government would have the ability to censor racists. You may agree, but then they may censor people who challenge the government which would be awful. How would I be condoning slavery? You clearly do not know what I am saying. I can be totally against slavery but above that support the Constitution. Compare it to free speech. If someone says something racist I would not support their comments, but I would support their right to say it. You want to give government unlimited power.
1
@gothgrrl8711 the constitution limits the state governments as well. Also, at the state level the people vote for what they want. At the local level you have more control. And you also have the ability to move. So how does my logic make zero sense? Uh, states can't reinstate slavery, there is a constitutional amendment that bans that. As for guilty of a crime, there is due process.
1
@Ihchkciyiyhgifuofyr555 ok, and?
1
@MrEdIsTheSource it does not state a lot of things because it leaves the issues up to the states. Yes, a lot of those you could not foresee, thus the states had a lot of freedom to change. With saying arms in the 2nd amendment it was saying guns. You can also own a tank and rocker launcher by the way.
1
@MrEdIsTheSource there were more than muskets in the past. Jefferson felt people should be free to own war ships. If you want to go down that route the internet did not exist then. So the 1st amendment is moot.
1
@Rae Tavia no, the SC decides that. That is why the SC exist. So a state cannot define that.
1
@21forevergone how so?
1
@UCV6LV7kub-I3oBXiNNv-l7Q Jefferson did not believe what?
1
@Rae Tavia sure, now do it at the state level. What is funny is that with a lot of these ruling it actually gives more power to the people. Isn't that what you want?
1
@chrishakala528 there is a reason why the 9th amendment is hardly citied, and has never been cited as the main amendment in any case. By the 9th amendment standard murder is a right, so is driving drunk. However, they are not.
1
@chrishakala528 that does not mean separation of church and state. It means government cannot establish a religion nor prohibit the exercise of it. That is why many presidents have been sworn in by a Bible, and many are religious and open about it. You can even endorse a religion, you just can't establish one.
1
@melgibson7313 what are you saying?
1
@melgibson7313 how so?
1
@josephheston9238 the first amendment suggests what?
1
@josephheston9238 what about the 14th amendment?
1
@melgibson7313 what is wrong on these decisions by the court?
1
@Rae Tavia what am I ignoring?
1
@josephheston9238 what is your point? No religious test shall be required. I do not see a problem here.
1
@josephheston9238 what? Are we really going down that route?
1
@Rae Tavia don't see what?
1
@josephheston9238 what is your point on article I section X? I agree with it and it actually supports what I have been saying. Also, the 14th amendment says nothing about abortion.
1
@josephheston9238 my point on the japanese doctors during WWII is that experts can do awful things. Someone said doctors and experts should be making decisions where I argued that experts and doctors can do awful things themselves.
1
@josephheston9238 that is not separation of church and state. As I said, many politicians are religious and are open about it. Separation of church and state would mean politicians cannot be religious or be sworn in by the bible. However, it happens.
1
@josephheston9238 the 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
1
@MeechMedia what is in the first amendment?
1
@josephheston9238 no, the constitution states what the federal government can do, and if not stated the it is left up to the states via the 10th amendment. Abortion is not written in the Constitution, thus it is not a federal issue and becomes a state issue.
1
@07Flash11MRC for decades we never voted on our senators. We also do not directly vote for the president.
1
@josephheston9238 I read the Constitution. And which state is require loyalty oath to Israel?
1
@josephheston9238 " My point on Article I: Section X is that do you think that states should make their government employees and contractors take loyalty oaths to Israel?" Which states are doing this? Also, my answer would be no.
1
@Nattydaddy4ever what common talking point?
1
@josephheston9238 looking into it it is not a loyalty to Israel but preventing employees from boycotting Israel. Big difference. I suggest you actually read the laws.
1
@josephheston9238 read the Abby Martin case, again, it isn't forcing loyalty but saying there can be no boycott of Israel. Big difference. She also won her case as most have. Also, it isn't all just "red states". California has similar laws. Also, the argument is a free speech issue, not a religious one.
1
@josephheston9238 on the doctors and scientists, someone responded to me with this comment "You are siding with paperwork and procedure over the expertise of doctors and bodily autonomy of individuals." Where I responded that experts can do awful things. In fact, knowing that strengthen the idea that we need a Constitution to prevent people in power from doing awful things.
1
@liondovegm the 9th amendment, arguably, was referring to historical rights at the time of the Constitution. With abortion it was not an issue that was challenged at that time, thus it was not considered a right.
1
@kevinhenry3476 that amendment has been argued many times. One argument is that it covers rights that existed at that time and not listed in the Constitution. Abortion was never challenged until the 20th century so it is not covered by the 9th amendment. It is similar to the Washington vs Glucksberg as assisted suicide was not challenged until that point. Thus you have no constitutional right to assisted suicide.
1
@cammybaby01 it does. If government bans eating people would not be able to survive. Besides, there are restrictions on what we can consume. Also, any state that bans eating would have their voters voting them out. On abortion, one, the woman decided to have sex. Next, the argument is that abortion is killing of a life. So like murder, is illegal. As for imprisonment, it is in the forth amendment. And even at that, again, if a government were to do that the people will vote them out or revolt.
1
@223Drone I am citing the Constitution. So how am I wrong?
1
@223Drone yeah, OK child killer.
1
@melgibson7313 no, I cited the Constitution. Even when others cite it I agreed with the Constitution. But if you are so smart, where in the Constitution does it say "separation of church and state"?
1
@Unbroken true, but I have been reading it for years myself. And to me the constitution is clear.
1
@melgibson7313 yes, it does have to be there. That is why separation of church and state is not a thing. That is why politicians can be religious. That is why presidents have been sworn in by the bible.
1
@Unbroken I have read a lot. Cornell Law is a great source. Yes, there are arguments made, but to me it comes down to this. The federal government is there for two things, deal with foreign affairs and handle commerce between states. Everything else is left up to the states. It is a standard so governments cannot be tyrannical.
1
@Unbroken also, people have criticized Randy Barnett. On the 9th amendment legal experts have argued its meaning a lot.
1
@223Drone separation of church and state is not a concept in the US. It is why many politicians are religious. If you want separation of church and state you would demand politicians should not be religious because that creates the situation where they are making decisions based on their religion. "Separation of church and state simply means that political leaders can't make political decision based on their religious views or lack of." But if they are religious then there is the possibility that they are.
1
@keirfarnum6811 abortion was never challenged at the time on the legal matter. Thus, abortion was not seen as a right. The constitution limits what all governments cannot and cannot do. There is no right to medical privacy. Even if so, the government can still investigate you. If abortion is illegal and the government suspects you had one they can investigate your medical record. Just like they can investigate if you have a mental disorder. Also, I find it ironic how many on the left want medical privacy when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to owning a gun they want people to do mental screening. Saying separation of church and state means government should not be involved in religion, period. That means government officials can't be religious, government cannot help churches if a crime is being committed against them, etc. However, that is not the case. The 1st amendment says government cannot establish religion nor prohibit the practice of religion. Government can still be involved in religion in many situations, and is. What fundamental rights are being taken away? Also, people still care about the economy over all of this. Abortions have been dropping for years and only in very blue parts of the nation do people care. Other parts do not.
1
@kurisu7885 both of those are not rights. Also, on medical privacy I find it ironic how the left want medical privacy when it comes to abortion but when it comes to owning a gun they want mental screening and information on someone's medical background when it comes to mental care.
1
@223Drone where is separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution? "Separation of church and state means that the government can't show favor to one religion or lack of other another" That is not separation of church and state.
1
@223Drone where in the 1st amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Not seeing it.
1
@223Drone that is not separation of church and state. What would be is barring government from getting involved with religion in general. That means politicians cannot be religious, no swearing by the bible, etc. But it happens.
1
@223Drone "politicians aren't allowed to implement polices based on their religion or lack of religion" If a politician is religious there runs that risk that they will. So to have actual separation of church and state you will have to ban politicians from practicing religion. We don't, though. Thus, there is no separation of church and state.
1
@223Drone I am not banning religion. I am saying if you want separation of church and state then a politician cannot be religious. Similar to how a president cannot profit off of a business they own. "Separation of church and state isn't meant to prevent politicians from being religious or non religious it's meant to prevent them from using their religion or lack of religion from influencing legislation." That is incorrect. Separation of church and state would mean politicians cannot be religious as being religious can influence their policies. Just like if a member of congress is profiting off of a business, it will influence their policies.
1
@sndspderbytes ok, where in the 1st amendment does it say separation of church and state?
1
@223Drone how does it make no sense? It is simple. Actual separation of church and state would mean politicians cannot be religious because it can influence their policies. Just like how members of congress cannot profit off of their businesses as it would influence their policies.
1
@keirfarnum6811 the is the powers of the federal government in a nutshell.
1
@borachon26 I don't care about the Bible. I don't base laws off of it
1
@Unbroken Barnett has been criticized by other experts. Look at the SC. You hardly get 9 justices to agree. You are hooked on one guy while appearing to ignore others
1
@Unbroken ok. So have you read books by other experts or just Barnett?
1
@223Drone i listen. I am saying the moment a politician is religious the church and state are no longer seperate.
1
@chroma3D this nation has been mainly about state rights. That is why states run K-12 education, local law enforcement, most of the roads, etc. The more local the government is the more control people have. Also, with you comment here is what I see. You are an outsider looking in at red states feeling those people are being oppressed. In reality, they aren't.
1
@erenyeager2964 not running away. First, many comments are not showing up. Next. I am with family and I am visiting the space center now My responses will come but be delayed
1
@erenyeager2964 scrolling up I am not seeing any of your so call comments. Lately comments have not been showing up on youtube. For example, a comment will say 12 replies but only 6 show up. I do not fear you. What did you say to me? We can keep the conversation going. As for mental health, many successful people have mental health issues. But of course a "liberal" like you will berate someone for a disease they have. I bet you berate diabetics and those with a disability as well.
1
@melgibson7313 nope, just got back from the space center. But thanks for showing that no matter what I say you will never believe.
1
@medude420024 to start, you don't know my actual stance on abortion. If you knew you would be surprised. Next, the concept is to limit governments. Abortion is not in the constitution, thus it goes to the states. Almost all issues have subjective and objective sides to them. With more local government the subjective issues are handled better based on what the people want. You may support abortion being legal, but many people in many states don't. Who are you to tell them how to live their life if you don't live in that state, you don't vote there, you don't pay taxes there, etc. Also, most important point is this. When the federal government made abortion legal you may support that. But now you gave the federal government that centralized power. Say, now with Roe v Wade being overturned by justices selected by republican presidents, how would you feel if republicans place a national abortion ban? I would oppose it based on how I support state rights, but you are the one who wants a centralized government, not me.
1
@liondovegm "Ultimately if a large portion of the US wants a law in place," Then it would be put in place at the state and local level. If so many support making abortion legal like you claim then you have nothing to worry about. However, last election more women than men voted in MS, a state that just created strict abortion laws. And how many are protesting there after Roe v Wade was overturned? Also, the federal government is there to serve the states, not the people.
1
@liondovegm "it's small because it's generally bad for modernized rulings, from that point of view all new legislation should come from a constitutional ammendment and if you have the slightest idea how much of a slope that is then you wouldn't argue for it. " The Constitution lays out the role of the federal government. If it is not in the Constitution it goes to the states. It is to limit government.
1
@Valyssi freedom to exercise religion is in the constitution.
1
@Valyssi and it was expanded to all levels of government. What is your point?
1
@Valyssi I will admit that at times they invoke things that are not in the Constitution. However, in the case you are talking about they are. No congress, including state congress, can create laws related to religion. As for Lawerance v TX, that was an incorrect ruling. You say sodomy laws are clearly on ideological religious purpose, not so. One can argue safety. Would I agree? No. But saying they are based clearly on religion is not so. Are murder laws clearly based on religion?
1
@Valyssi 1. Ok, what is your point? Again, it does not mean it was "clearly religious". 2. Who cares if they believe in the Bible? Where is your proof the laws were clearly based on religion? So when they pass murder laws is that based on religion? Or when Bush appointed John E Jones as a federal judge, and all republicans confirmed him, was that clearly based off of religion? Look up his ruling on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. You are grasping at straws here bud.
1
@erenyeager2964 so why did you run away?
1
@Valyssi my point on that judge is that Bush and the republicans supported a judged that stopped the teaching of religion in the science classroom. Your mindset is that republicans are pushing religion. I gave you an example where they aren't. Explain that. Seems like you can't
1
@Valyssi leftists: "republicans want to push religion on us" Meanwhile they have a history of promoting a judge who stop the teaching of religion in the science classroom.
1
@erenyeager2964 I don't get notifications.
1
@jonwheeler75 it is what the founding fathers had in mind. And it is how our nation grew and developed. People moved in much harsher conditions then we live in now.
1
@ChillStreamsLive it is in the constitution
1
@cameronbarenbrugge649 where in the first amendment? Point to me those exact words
1
@jonwheeler75 or, if you don't like it get involved in your local community as opposed to crying
1
Good luck. Irony here is that leftists love Canada where Canada has stricter immigration laws than the US.
1