Lawless Biden, with no respect for Constitution, declares non-existent Amendment "law of the land"

[User]

Just amazing what these extremists will do on their way out the door. No respect for the law, no respect for the Constitution, just trying to stir the pot as much as they can on their way out the door. 

 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

Just amazing what these extremists will do on their way out the door.

The fact 1/4 of the states still haven't ratified the 28th Amendment is what's extreme. Like something you'd find in ISIS' Caliphate. I can't believe the other 3/4 of the states haven't liberated them.

BTW you should probably run away and hide now, you know this thread isn't going to go well for you.

[User]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The fact 1/4 of the states still haven't ratified the 28th Amendment is what's extreme. Like something you'd find in ISIS' Caliphate. I can't believe the other 3/4 of the states haven't liberated them.

BTW you should probably run away and hide now, you know this thread isn't going to go well for you.

Great job ignoring the entire subject here. 

I mean, that is a real brain-dead moronic DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ISIS DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR response there. 

You are so far disconnected from reality, it is not even funny. I am not sure it is even dishonesty on your part anymore, you are just this insane. 

[gatomontes99]

Quote

But the National Archives, which is responsible for publishing amendments to the Constitution, immediately indicated it had no plans to follow Biden’s lead.

U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan has previously said that the ERA’s eligibility has expired, and could not be added now unless Congress acts. Congress, under control of Republicans, is unlikely to do so.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/17/biden-era-amendment-004495

Joe may as well have declared the moon to be made of blue cheese.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, User said:

You are so far disconnected from reality, it is not even funny. I am not sure it is even dishonesty on your part anymore, you are just this insane. 

It's 2025 and you're still apparently quite opposed to equal rights. WTF is wrong with you?

What do the women in your family think? Let me guess, you run away and hide when the topic comes up.

[User]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's 2025 and you're still apparently quite opposed to equal rights. WTF is wrong with you?

Anything else you want to make up to argue against?

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What do the women in your family think? Let me guess, you run away and hide when the topic comes up.

How far to the left are you? Can you even define what a woman is in any meaningful way? ROFL

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Anything else you want to make up to argue against?

Made up? Prove it.

9 minutes ago, User said:

How far to the left are you?

To the left of what?

10 minutes ago, User said:

Can you even define what a woman is in any meaningful way? ROFL

You need help with that too? It's no wonder equal rights frighten you.

[User]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Made up? Prove it.

It was your baseless assertion you clown. 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

To the left of what?

Marx apparently. 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You need help with that too? It's no wonder equal rights frighten you.

Figures. You cowards almost always run from the question. 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, User said:

It was your baseless assertion you clown. 

There's nothing baseless about the assertion that people who would oppose equal human rights are barely fit to be called human themselves.

12 minutes ago, User said:

Marx apparently

🤣

Compared to you I'm a conservative.

13 minutes ago, User said:

Figures. You cowards almost always run from the question.

There's nothing cowardly about ignoring patently dumb questions. But if you're truly serious about requiring an answer you can live with why didn't you go look it up in a dictionary?

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's nothing baseless about the assertion that people who would oppose equal human rights are barely fit to be called human themselves.

That was not your first assertion you pathetic liar. 

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Compared to you I'm a conservative.

Compared to me you might as well be Mao or Pol Pot. 

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's nothing cowardly about ignoring patently dumb questions. But if you're truly serious about requiring an answer you can live with why didn't you go look it up in a dictionary?

Such a dumb question you have to cowardly run from it. 

 

[NAME REMOVED]

Dark Brandon strikes again!

[User]

This kind of lawlessness on their part is no better than Trump saying he won the election and taking measures he thinks are lawful to fight the election results. 

We should certainly lock up both Harris and Biden for their collusion here to break the law. 

 

 

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, User said:

That was not your first assertion you pathetic liar. 

So what? It stands just fine on its own too.

14 minutes ago, User said:

Compared to me you might as well be Mao or Pol Pot. 

Compared to you I'm a human being.  You're a worthless POS, comparatively

14 minutes ago, User said:

Such a dumb question you have to cowardly run from it. 

From what a woman is? LMAO!

I'm pretty sure you're not one but I also know how pigheadedly disagreeable you like to be.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2025 by eyeball

[herbie]

Well is there a constitutional time limit on when States must ratify amendments by? If not, you have to add it. And YOU would be the lawless one, typical MAGAnoid.

The real issue is the shame of taking so long and the people still opposed.

Edited January 17, 2025 by herbie

[User]

19 minutes ago, herbie said:

Well is there a constitutional time limit on when States must ratify amendments by? If not, you have to add it. And YOU would be the lawless one, typical MAGAnoid.

The real issue is the shame of taking so long and the people still opposed.

How are you this stupid?

You don't have to add the Amendment if it is not ratified... it has to be ratified by a certain timeframe to become one. 

If anything you said was true, Biden would have done this before the Friday on his last 3 days in office. 

 

[herbie]

I asked if there was a time frame and what it was. You can't answer?

[User]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

I asked if there was a time frame and what it was. You can't answer?

No, you claimed:

"If not, you have to add it. And YOU would be the lawless one, typical MAGAnoid."

Because you are stupid. 

[gatomontes99]

Quote

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/25

The Equal Rights Amendment was originally proposed to the states in 1972. The original proposal included a deadline for ratification of March 22, 1979; Congress subsequently extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. Although the requisite 38 states have ratified the amendment, three of these states did so after the deadlines, and five states subsequently rescinded their ratifications. The status of the amendment has been the subject of litigation.

There. While it is true 38 states ratified the amendment, several did it after the deadline and 5 rescinded. That leaves the amendment 8 states short. If there is a need, let's have congress propose it again and vote on it again.

I presume that 46 years ago this amendment was helpful. I'm not sure it is needed today. But, it is possible, I guess, that it might be needed in the future.

[Nationalist]

This is just Brandon trying to shine up his tarnished legacy. Nothing more. It's not legal and will not be enacted.

The comical twist to this nonsense is, I agree with @gatomontes99. The ammendment should be tried again and Trump should propose that.

It would be a feather in his cap and drive the Libbies ever further out of their minds.

[herbie]

15 hours ago, User said:

No, you claimed:

"If not, you have to add it. And YOU would be the lawless one, typical MAGAnoid."

Because you are stupid. 

Talking of stupid the smooth brained Trumpalo believes if there's an open time limit you o\don't have to follow the constitution.
And STILL can't say fi there is and what that time limit is.

But then again, in spite of all events continues to support an actual criminal and claim the other one is the bad guy.

[User]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Talking of stupid the smooth brained Trumpalo believes if there's an open time limit you o\don't have to follow the constitution.
And STILL can't say fi there is and what that time limit is.

Yes, you are a complete mor0n. Why are you here talking about something you are so ignorant about?