Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, March 23, 2019

Today In GOP Outreach: Congressman Tells Black Voter Civil Rights Act May Be Unconstitutional

Today In GOP Outreach: Congressman Tells Black Voter Civil Rights Act May Be Unconstitutional

U.S. Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL) became the latest Republican to spit on his party’s minority outreach plans this week, when he marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act by suggesting to a black voter that the law may not be constitutional.

During a town hall in Gainesville, Florida on Monday evening, a 57-year-old African-American man named Melvin Flournoy asked Yoho,”Do you think that any part of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 [sic], do you think any part of that is constitutional?”

“This country grew through a lot of growing pain. We’re going through it again,” Yoho replied. As we grow as a country and prosper, we’re going to go through it again in the future. That’s why I’m so thankful for the Constitution because it allows us to do that.”

“Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act? I wish I could answer that 100 percent,” the congressman continued. “I know a lot of things that were passed are not constitutional, but I know it’s the law of the land.”

Video of his response is below, via ThinkProgress:

Yoho, who was a large-animal veterinarian before joining Congress in 2013, is hardly a legal expert. But he’ll surely be relieved to know that the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act is no longer in question.

Of course, Yoho is also no expert on race relations. In 2012 he added photos of himself to campaign bumperstickers to make sure voters didn’t think he was a “Jap,” and last August he claimed that Obamacare is “racist” because its tax on indoor tanning “disenfranchised” him.

You may also not be surprised to learn that Yoho is an unapologetic birther.

Despite all this, the freshman representative is considered to be a safe bet for re-election in Florida’s 3rd congressional district (although he will have to beat back a primary challenger from a role-playing opponent, Jake “Chazz Darling” Rush).

H/t: ThinkProgress

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 357

88 responses to “Today In GOP Outreach: Congressman Tells Black Voter Civil Rights Act May Be Unconstitutional”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    For a Tea Party zealot the only thing that is constitutional is the Republican agenda, even when its focus on helping the elite affects the welfare of the people.

  2. Grannysmovin says:

    This is the problem with the Tea Party they keep putting up unqualified people and than the Republicans and Tea Party vote them into office. Now we have another horses a$$ looking for another couple of years of getting paid for doing nothing and getting to hear himself talk and get his 15 minutes of fame on television, even if it is for being ignorant.

  3. Annemb says:

    Another blooper by a TGOPer… proof that the Constitution hasn’t been read. I wonder why Ted Yoho and others swore to uphold and defend the Constitution when they trash it more often than not? These need to be voted out of office sooner rather than later before they totally destroy this republic. They are treasonous and seditious, enemies of the State.

    • ken pifer says:

      Obviously, you are referring to the liberals, who with their deity who resides illegally in our White House, has been shredding our constitution and flaunting our laws? This regime has been labeled the most lawless administration in American history.

      • Paul Bass says:

        “illegally in our white House”, yea, right! Elected with a greater majority than anyone in the last 40 years. “our white house”, yea, it’s only for old white men, right? “Most lawless administration”, only said by tea-party zealots, no shred of truth…
        Please go spread your lying hated elsewhere, we don’t believe you.

      • Annemb says:

        Says who — the TGOPs.

      • STMBT says:

        Ken you have to quit listening to people like Rush Limpballs and all the rest of the consertive Nazis.

      • pisces63 says:

        He is illegally there. He was voted in and there is no one shredding or trying to shred the constitution any more than republicans in their deliberate suppression of my vote. Denial of this president the right to create jobs. The lies told on him. Hits made on he and his family by the pin headed elitist, inbred idiots like you. The only law you see faunting and sreded is a black man is president when your constitution did not consider him a full human being. You’re tellin on yourself. go back to the idiot right and stay there. You are not now needed or wanted here. I am not on your hate filled right wing blogs and have never been but I like for my brain to grow. Nixon’s was the most lawless, idiot. From the VP to the president. BOTH had to resign.

        • progressiveandproud says:

          I agree with all you’ve said with the exception of Nixon.

          Bush, Jr. was the most lawless. Two illegal wars, not taking action to prevent 9/11 and then preventing a thorough investigation, passing the patriot act, torturing detainees, etc. Bush should be in prison for war crimes and yet he sits at home and paints childish portraits.

          • pisces63 says:

            I whole heartedly agree. I used Nixon because he and Agnew got theirs. The thing that angers me the most about the patriot act? The fact that the same people ranting and raving against it now, with this how dare this president false rage but called us anti-American and unpatriotic for protesting against it’s passage and all it entailed including the airport strip searches. NOW they act as if this is the first they heard of it.

          • idamag says:

            Yes, when they were scared and hiding under their beds with their windows covered with visqueen and duct tape,they welcomed the Patriot Act.

        • idamag says:

          I beleive you meant legally there. So who is trying the shred the constitution? I would say the ones who don’t believe in the Democratic process of the voters electing a president and voting passing bills.

      • Sand_Cat says:

        You’re just another moron without an original thought quoting Fox (or are even they that stupid?) to us.
        Thanks, but no thanks.

      • mikem42 says:

        “Has been labeled” you say. Is that like “some say”? I am a proud liberal, and my deity is God above, not anyone residing in the capital. You are so up your butt in rage against a non-white president that you cannot even make sense. You wouldn’t know the constitution from green eggs and ham, like one of your heros, Ted Cruz.

        • kenndeb says:

          You may want to read the constitution yourself. If this tyrannical regime gets their way, you may not get another chance to see what rights and freedoms you once had.

          http://www.heritage.org/constitution

          • mikem42 says:

            Get real. The Constitution you like to spout off about is an outdated and often misunderstood document that has been interpreted wrongly by everyone from yourself to Supreme Court judges. My freedoms are not based on your concepts of freedom. I have lived a long life and enjoy free speech, religion, ability to walk and talk wherever and to whomever I choose. If you think things like the Patriot Act are okay, you’re wrong. If you think we can do much about it until the money is taken out of politics, you are wrong. Get over this infatuation with the Constitution and get on with your life. Volunteer to help those who need help, ride a bike, do something besides this insane regurgitation of your idea of others freedoms and the Constitution.

          • kenndeb says:

            Just about what I expected. Those freedoms you enjoy are quickly slipping away, and if Americans do not take a stand against this regime, they will be gone. It will be much harder to get our rights back once they have been stripped from us by the Emperor. Take a long look at the Bundys in Nevada. We are sitting on a powder keg that will fulfill the regimes hope to further divide this country. There are more people fed up with the Emperor than you apparently think.

          • mikem42 says:

            As usual, you misinterpret what you think I said. My freedoms are not slipping away, and to cite the rogue tax evader from Nevada shows your inability to reason. He is a fraud and an anarchist, who thinks he is above the law of the land. He benefits mightily from the government, but doesn’t want to play by the same rules that other ranchers do, and thereby gets an unfair advantage in the market place. How un-conservative is that? And you continue to disparage our current president with words like regime, well you must have slept through the previous 8 years of GWB and his administration. You show yourself to be either a racist or an idiot. You choose. I’ll move on with my life of freedom.

          • ralphkr says:

            Oh, goody! Now you have exposed that you think that freeloading Bundy in Nevada is a victim. He claims that he is a rancher but he only owns enough land to graze two cows so he has been illegally running his herd on thousands of acres of land he does not own and refuses to pay grazing rights. He has been in court a number of times battling having to pay what he owes and lost every time. I bet that you also think that those anti-American thugs that came to his aid are heroes. Some hero! They brought their wives and daughters with them and intended to hide behind the females if it came to an actual fire fight (That last is from an interview with the militia chief thug). I just wonder, ken, if you would have jumped to Bundy’s aid if he had been a black welfare queen with a huge house and new cars purchased with welfare funds generated by her 47 fake IDs battling against property tax and a group of Black Panthers coming to her aid. Same principle, ken, same principle.

          • Independent1 says:

            I notice you haven’t responded to Lynda about all those freedoms we’ve lost: come on!! Let’s hear them!!

            Are they like the freedoms that the GOP has been taking away from people in virtually every Red State??!

            Like the freedom to do with their own body what they want??

            Like the freedom to marry whomever they happened to fall in love with??

            Like the freedom to use contraceptives if that’s what they want to do??

            Like the freedom to vote without and undue hindrance??

            Like the freedom actually to go to some political events because your not of the party putting on the event??

            Like the freedom to practice the religion you choose unless it happens to be the kind of Christian the GOP likes??

            Like the freedom to have the same benefits as white people if you don’t happen to be white???

            If you’re talking about taking away freedoms, maybe you should take 11 minutes and watch this episode of Rachel Maddow that makes the North Carolina GOP look like what the Nazis back in the early 1930s when they were working to take over Germany:

            http://thebigslice2013.org/how-hard-is-it-going-to-be-to-vote-in-north-carolina-let-rachel-maddow-show-you-video/

          • Russell Byrd says:

            You forgot the only “freedoms” that he actually considers freedom.

            The freedom to tell you what to do while he does what he pleases.

            The freedom to harm anyone of a different race, color, origin, or sexual orientation, and likely, anyone of the opposite sex.

            The right to listen to his viewpoints, and only his viewpoints, while you have no right to reply. At least, not without retribution.

            The right to actually force you to believe his perverted nonsense.

            The right to hate anyone he finds disagreeable, or physically, mentally, etc. different from himself, and to take “appropriate” action to “correct” those he hates, without any fear of retribution.

            The right to have a good easy life of luxury, while you pay all the taxes, and carry all the load.

            In short, he believes that Lincoln said, “of the right-wackos, by the right-wackos, and for the right-wackos, and everyone else can perish from the Earth.” Except maybe for enough slaves to keep them in clover.

            I am going to repeat this for our “friendly” troll. It would be cowardly to do otherwise.

          • Independent1 says:

            Great list Russell!! If you put our two lists together, it constitutes a very damning picture of the Devil’s Party (aka the GOP)!!!

          • Russell Byrd says:

            Thanks, and my apologies. I should have sent that directly to kenndeb first. However, I started reading his garbage, and the more I read, the more I became disgusted. I never intended to post at all, but by the time I read your post, I was reaching critical mass . So, I went thermonuclear and “detonated” right here.

            Anyway, I forwarded it on the Kenndeb. And you know this was just my way of being “cute.” . . . Well, I always failed at being cute. Butt ugly is more my style, but I tried. Always good to hear from you, and have a good night.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            I also would like to add:

            Unfortunately, any real appreciation of the resulting new list, would be totally lost on gits like kenndeb.

          • idamag says:

            The cretin also has the freedom to diss the president without being sent to a political prison, which would happen in some other countries.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            There aught to be a “Gulag” in Alaska. As far North and as cold as it gets. Then send that cretin (very fitting) there to mine ice for about ten years. We just ship the cars down south until the ice all melts. Then we send them back for a refill, . . . forever.

          • idamag says:

            Maybe those other countries have something. At least, their countries won’t have their democracies destroyed by nut jobs like Germany did in the 30’s.

          • idamag says:

            “those freedoms are slipping away.” Tomorrow the world is going to be hit by a giant meteor – you just wait and see. These are abstract statements that don’t mean diddly-de-squat without proof. Concrete is: Joe Smith was arrested for possession with the attempt to distribute. Abstract: Joe Smith is a drug dealer. One states facts and the other blather.

          • Russell Byrd says:

            This was my reply to “Independent1.” I thought you should also get a copy since it is about you.

            You forgot the only “freedoms” that he actually considers freedom.

            The freedom to tell you what to do while he does what he pleases.

            The freedom to harm anyone of a different race, color, origin, or sexual orientation, and likely, anyone of the opposite sex.

            Theright to listen to his viewpoints, and only his viewpoints, while you have no right to reply. At least, not without retribution.

            The right to actually force you to believe his perverted nonsense.

            Theright to hate anyone he finds disagreeable, or physically, mentally, etc. different from himself, and to take “appropriate” action to “correct” those he hates, again without any fear of retribution.

            The right to have a good easy life of luxury, while you pay all the taxes, and carry all the load.

            In short, he believes that Lincoln said, “of the right-wackos, by the right-wackos, and for the right-wackos, and everyone else can perish from the Earth.” Except maybe for enough slaves to keep them in clover.

          • idamag says:

            I would suggest you read it, noise maker. You aren’t putting out facts. The best way to understand the Constitution is to study the argument made by the framers when they were working on it. So now, before you don your pointed head sheet, name one place and proof that someone is attacking the Constitution.

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            You are of course wholly right. But these people can not and will not study-the word is alien to them. They only read and listen to that with which they already agree with and that in turn is almost always inaccurate, wildly off-the-wall or just propagandistic. John Stuart Mill said it perfectly: not all conservatives are stupid but the vast majority of stupid people are conservative. (Fat chance these yobs know who Mill was..maybe they ought to ask Sarah Palin, Ph.D.)

          • idamag says:

            Just because you picked up the constitution and run your slowly moving finger over the words while moving your lips, does not mean you actually read and understood the constitution. It is more likely that you were told by ideologues what their interpretation of the constitution was.,

        • idamag says:

          Since the topic is about yoho calling the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional, I would guess he doesn’t like the Civil Rights Acts and agrees with yoho. I would also guess he is a white supremist.

          • mikem42 says:

            I’m guessing you are correct. As for Yoho, this reminds me of my favorite boardwalk game, Whack-A-Moley. Just when you think this one is the worst, another one pops up.

      • Daniel Jones says:

        Kenndeb, I looked over your poisonous fever dream of a posting, and I have to say–your grammar is almost as atrocious as your lack of connection with factual history.
        1) Obama’s not liberal. He’s actually pretty centrist.
        2) He’s legal. Even if he’d been born in Kenya, he’d be legal.
        3) He’s never *once* claimed godhood.
        4) He’s never shredded the Constitution, that’s what ding dongs like Teddie here do.
        5) Flaunting our laws means he showcases them. I LIKE that in a President.
        6) Glenn Beck does not portray politics or reality.. “regime”, really, now!!
        Therefore, I am flagging your pack of lies as being inappropriate.. because it is.
        Have a nice day.

        • kenndeb says:

          Please, flag away. By the way, lying is what this regime is best at. That is why I no longer support the Emperor. I was betrayed by my party. The democrats are now the new communist party. I served my country during a time when we were fighting against communism. Now we have a communist in our white house. Lies from the emperor include you can keep your insurance, you can keep your doctor, Bengasi was caused by a YouTube video, 90% of Americans support gun control, The IRS has not been used to punish opposition, the NSA is not spying on Americans, this will be the most transparent administration, etc., etc. The lies continue and the liberals just go along. good plan.

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            The president is not a communist. The Democratic Party is not communist. If you knew anything about communism or ever had lived in a communist country you would know that. Slinging such extremist, insulting, radical comments is precisely why people like you have lost and will keep losing elections. You have no sense of self-perception because if you did you would know how idiotic your extremist comments make you appear.

          • idamag says:

            The bully on the playground. Remember how they name called to cower people into doing what they wanted. I don’t know about your school, but in mine, it was, “You’re chicken,” or “you are yellow.”

          • ralphkr says:

            My, kennedeb, do you have to have extensive training to be able to post such misguided asinine nonsense? Lets go through your various stupid assertions… I have kept my insurance, I have kept my doctor, the first reports from Benghazi filed by reporters who were actually there and interviewed many of the attackers was that the attack WAS because of TV (not the video itself but TV reports about attacks in Egypt that were due to the YouTube video). According to the people on the scene of the “safe-house” attack (where our Ambassador & and aide died of smoke inhalation) it appeared very disorganized as small groups showed up, milled about, and finally decided to attack the back gate. On the other hand, the much later attack on the CIA installation was a very organized military attack by a militia (apparently they wished to keep the weapons we had given them and not sell them back to us) where two of our mercenaries were killed. I am definitely one of those Americans who strongly believes in proper gun control because, without control, one is apt to miss the target (I am a former US Army sniper & LEO). If the IRS was being used to punish opposition then either they are the gang who couldn’t shoot straight or they are a conservative outfit because the only organizations denied non-profit designation were liberal ones. (In my opinion ALL those outfits should have been denied no matter which side they were illegally politicking for). I most definitely do feel that Obama should not have endorsed the Cheney/Bush NSA and continued their lies. Sorry, well not really, to have knocked the wheels off you ramshackle wagon of lies.

          • idamag says:

            Have you noticed this comparison? When 18 diplomatic facilities were attacked during Reagan’s day, as real Americans, we reacted as one nation with outrage toward the attackers. Have you heard any outrage against the attackers? Do they even care who they are?

          • ralphkr says:

            And have you notices, idamag, that when Bush said that he did not care if Bin Laden was ever caught that there was no outcry from the Conservatives but the Conservatives have been in full song because Obama gave the go ahead to Seal Team Six to get Bin Laden. I can only reckon that the Conservatives are upset that one of their own was killed.

          • idamag says:

            I noticed.

      • Lynda Groom says:

        Seriously kenndeb? Please proceed to prove your point. Especially that wonderful part about this being the most lawless administration in American history. That is one big claim with no evidence. Please continue?????

      • idamag says:

        The University of Kansas did a study on internet trolls and published their results in the Kansas City Star a week ago.
        they are cowards and would never speak up to your face. They are also mean and enjoy hurting feelings and think they are hurting other posters’ feelings with hateful rhetoric. I would also add that I find they lie a lot. I don’t belong to a party. I don’t need to. I don’t plan on joining one. However, I find some are more detrimental to democracy than others. So let us look at your points. I don’t see any facts, just yammering the group speak of the koch propaganda machines. I don’t see any proof that Liberals have a deity in the White House. The Democrats haven’t backed their president as they should have. Shredding our Constitution? A provable example please? Those who would like to shred our constitution are those who think the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench. The ones who refuse to bring bills up for a vote. The ones who get paid for nothing. The ones who want Civil Rights and Voting Rights abandoned. The ones who purge franchised voters and make it difficult to vote. The ones who are for sale to the highest bidder. The ones who, instead of pledging their loyalty to the voter, pledge it to a gambling magnate in a written pledge. Those who are dumb enough to help an entity destroy the multi-party system. I wish everyone would read “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” The subversives kind of jumped the gun. They weren’t finished with destroying the Democratic Party when they started on the Republicans with pledges, and name calling – RINOs. No, the present administration has not been labeled the most lawless in history. We have had a president and his vice president and secretary of state tried and found guilty o war crimes in two countries and they will be arrested in three other countries if they ever set foot in them. Your group speak doesn’t cut it.

  4. Vintagechick says:

    It continues to amaze me that seemingly intelligent people can elect such an idiot. I guess voting party lines is the easiest way out of the voting booth (when allowed, that is).

    • ps0rjl says:

      These people keep getting elected because the states have gerrymandered districts so no matter how radical or ignorant a candidate is as long as he toes the radical right’s line he/she will be assured of getting elected.

    • mikem42 says:

      They gerrymander and prevent honest citizens from voting. That’s how they do it; if they had to do it honestly, they couldn’t do it.

  5. Sharon Isern says:

    I am more than ashamed to admit this bigot represents my district in Florida. He was funded by the Tea Party and elected by the Tea Party. He does NOT represent me.

  6. Allan Richardson says:

    I am also ashamed to admit that this district includes the great University of Florida where I got my engineering degree many years ago. Oh wait, the Scott administration has suppressed voting by ADULT CITIZENS in college on their campus. That must be how this idiot got into office; even Florida State Seminole students are not that stupid (just kidding, folks; sports rivalry, you know, have to say it). So, Go Gators anyway! The “town vs gown” rivalry is also still alive, I see.

  7. itsfun says:

    Why worry about the constitution? Obama will do what he wants and continue to ignore the Constitution. Obama and Holder will not enforce laws they don’t like and change laws as they feel.

    • Paul Bass says:

      So says the right wing troll on the progressive site…

    • Faraday_Cat says:

      Citations missing (truth missing)…

      • idamag says:

        The name calling group speak in generalities don’t want truth. They aren’t acquainted with truth and furhermore, they don’t want to be.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Once again, far, far more true of Obama’s predecessor than of him. But hey, what’s that to the fact-free ignorant such as you?

    • Independent1 says:

      Explain to us itsfun how Obama, the president who has issued the fewest executive orders of any president in office since 1900 (less than 170) could be trampling on the Constitution. Would you kindly explain that to us!!

      And then explain how probably the best GOP president since Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, didn’t really trample on the Constitution when he bypassed Congress more than 1,800 times during his 8 years in office in issuing Executive Orders (EOs). And how Coolidge didn’t also when he bypassed Congress more than 1,200 times. You would be hard pressed to believe some of the things these two GOP presidents accomplished with no backing from Congress whatsoever. And even Eisenhower wrote more than 4 times the EOs that Obama has and Reagan almost 3 times; no president has issued as few EO’s as Obama since before 1895.

      But irrespective of all that – you’re such a whiz at everything (you can take that as a big joke) – let’s see you list JUST ONE THING Obama has done that’s not constitutional – and that, if it is, wasn’t trampled on far more, not only by Bush Jr, but also by every other president since the late 1800s.

      I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about!! Like everything else, you’re so dumb you don’t know which way is up!! You’re the poster boy for a low IQ conservative.

      http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

      • itsfun says:

        You talk about IQ when you don’t even know the meaning of words you are using:

        Dumb Definition
        dictionary.search.yahoo.com
        adj. adjective

        Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.

        Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans.

        Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear.

        I was dumb with disbelief.

        tr.v.

        To make silent or dumb.

        Maybe you should go back to grade school and get an understanding of the English language!

        when you have a president that says in the state of the union speech, he has a pen and phone and will just go around congress, that is definitely the sign of one that couldn’t care less about our form of government or the constitution of the US. This is someone that considers himself to be a king.

        • Independent1 says:

          Everytime you make a post you prove just one more time how ignorant of the facts you really are. IQ standands for Intelligence Quotient – something you have absolutely nothing of: INTELLGENCE!!

          Because if you did, you’d realize that our forefathers understood that there would be times when the president would have to deal with an obstructionist Congress and therefore gave him some powers to get the country moving when that happened. Such that all Obama was saying when he said I have a pen and a phone was”If Congress is going to be as absolutely obstructionist as it’s been, then I’m going to use WHATEVER POWERS the Constitution gives me to DO THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA!!
          Because for the last almost 6 years, the TOTAL IDIOTS IN THE GOP have done everything in their power TO DESTROY AMERICA!! EVEN
          to the point of their inaction BOARDING ON TREASON!!!
          AND if you had even one ounce of brains, you’d realize that Obama, HAS DONE NOTHING that is beyond the powers the Constitution gives him!!!

          And if you don’t understand all that YOU’RE EVEN DUMBER THAN I THINK!!!!!!!!!

    • pisces63 says:

      Liar. Congress makes laws. Congress enacts laws and no one else. If you haven’t the brains to know that, you really need to learn your constitution and the what each of the three powers can/cannot do. I have more of a chance to change a law or add a constitutional amendment than any president ever could.

      • itsfun says:

        You call names and have no idea what you are talking about. Obamacare is a law! When Obama changed the implementation date of the healthcare law, he changed the law. When Obama exempted certain groups from the law, he changed the law. The law had implementation dates, not implementation suggestions. The date was in the law, thus changing the date, changed the law. Who was affected by the law is also in the law, exempting people from the law is changing the law!. I would call you a liar, but will consider the source and just say you are uninformed.

        • idamag says:

          Double digit I.Q. the Affordable Care Act was passed with a majority in both the House and Senate. That is how the constitution works. It is the American Way of government. Those people who want to shred the constitution are those fighting the majority vote rule. BTW, it took 2/3 majority to pass the ACA.

          • itsfun says:

            What do you mean by 2/3 majority to pass ACA? It only passed in the senate via a special rule that let a simple majority pass it. The rule actually was created to help pass budget matters, but was used underhandedly by the Senate Democrats. They did not have 2/3 after Sen Brown was elected in Mass after Ted Kennedy died. The only one wanting to shred the constitution is Obama. He is the one who said he has a pen and a phone and will bypass congress if they don’t do what he wants. This is called a king or dictator in other countries.

          • idamag says:

            It was actually passed by 61%. I know you anti American types do not like our way of government. 51% would have still been a majority, no matter what your subversives say about everything. I like democracy and I don’t like you any better than any other threat to it.

          • itsfun says:

            61% is not 2/3 of the vote. I like democracy too, I just wish we still had one. Always amazes me when someone doesn’t agree with people like you, they become subversives, haters, bigots, racists, liars, and anything else you can think of. I always thought freedom of speech and being able to express opinions were a big part of what helped make America a great and free country. Appartently you don’t believe in free speech. My guess is you are one of the people that want to change the constitution to read the way you want it to.

  8. Angel Perea says:

    KEEPING IT THOUGHTFULLY HONEST: Speaking as an informed and independent intelligent Voter, I have a message for Republican tea party Clowns. Let’s exam their Grand achievements since the last election. I recall the Close down of our Govt. and the later give away payments to those Fed. workers that did not work with a result of wasted cost of $26K in Tax payer funds. Second, the continuing record Obstruction votes: there has been no Veterans Benefits Bill nor Job Creation legislation for Middle Class Americans; Lack of concern and failure to act on any Job creation, or any Immigration Reform, and the clowns obstructed passage of unemployed insurance for middle class Americans including
    returning Vets that can’t find jobs. And finally, now they refuse to establish
    a reasonable living minimum Wage or Equal pay for Equal work for women so that Working Americans can earn something just above the poverty level to support their families! So it is going to take more than the blame game of their FAVOR TARGET THAT BLACK GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE or the use of modern political outreach techniques such Voter suppression! So how these accomplishments working for your
    pocketbook issues? Do you really think that most intelligent thinking Americans are that stupid?

    • Paul Bass says:

      Yes but unfortunately we need more then just the “intelligent thinking Americans” to win the elections!

    • Independent1 says:

      Angel, don’t disagree with anything you said, but keep in mind that the wasted cost resulting from the tea party shut down of the government was $26B, like in Billions – not $26K like in thousands).

    • idamag says:

      Shining example: Bi-party committee meeting: One side presents their arguments and when the other side gets up to speak, the microphone is turned off. Who is trying to shred the Constitution?

  9. elw says:

    I think we should encourage tea party candidates to keep expressing their closest held beliefs, it will only help their opponents to beat them. In the end they do nothing but make jokes of themselves.

  10. Bob says:

    This son of a bitch just set our party back 200 years!

    He need to taken out to the wood shed and beat with in an inch of his worthless life. Me thinks he’s really a Democrat!

  11. Sand_Cat says:

    It’s Florida; what do you expect?

  12. kanawah says:

    Another stupid teatard chewing his foot off up to the hip.

  13. Elliot J. Stamler says:

    I was alive at the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Yes, its constitutionality is now the law of the land as Rep. Yoho has said. There were serious constitutional arguments raised against its constitutionality at the time of its enactment and litigation including those by Sen. Goldwater who deplored segregation and racism. On its face Rep. Yoho does not seem to me to have said something utterly off the wall. I don’t agree with or like Yoho politically and am a staunch Democrat but the fact is that as the recent SC decision on Sect. 5 of the Voting Rights Act showed there may be parts of Civil Rights laws that are in fact unconstitutional and you cannot wrap unconstitutional law in a “civil rights” veneer to make it pass muster. Yoho generally is wrong but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • Independent1 says:

      Elliot, I am not sure I would trust the current compilation of the SCOTUS when it comes to determining what is and what isn’t constitutional. Several SCOTUS decisions over the past decade plus have been very questionable with respect to Constitutionality (their decision in 2000 to give the election to Bush, Citizens United and the recent McCutheon decision are just some examples).

      • Elliot J. Stamler says:

        Whether or not any of us likes a particular SC makeup it’s necessary to remember that the SC is not final because it is always right-it is right because it is final. All of us can question this or that SC decision we don’t agree with. I myself emphatically AGREE with the McCutcheon and Citizens United decisions precisely because of the reasoning of them which accords with my view of the First Amendment (and that of the ACLU which is not a right-wing group to put it mildly and of which I am not a member.) I don’t like the results stemming from those decisions but the remedy isn’t and can’t be suppression of anyone’s free speech even the Kochs, Soros, Adelson, etc. The decision I refer to in my above comment is in my view entirely correct because it and possibly other parts of the Voting Rights Act are, TODAY (not 40+ years ago when passed) are a lingering racial entitlement which can’t be rationally justified.

        • Independent1 says:

          You’re welcome to your opinion but I totally disagree. Nothing in the 1st amendment even remotely implies that simply because someone is wealthy, that they should therefore be granted a distorted amount of free speech. No American citizen should be allowed to use their wealth to influence elections in states they don’t even live in like the Koch Bros are doing constantly. Setting up shadow organizations into which to funnel millions of dollars GOES WAY BEYOND FREE SPEECH!!

          Our forefathers were even concerned about SOME STATES having undue influence on elections, which is why they defined how many citizens a member of the House should represent and limited 2 members to every state in the Senate. Our forefathers would be appalled to know that the judicial wing of the GOP (aka the Supreme Court) had distorted the constitution to the degree that it has over the past several decades.

          If we’re going to define money as speech, why don’t we just do away with the current limitations on how many representatives each state has in the House and Senate and let each state dictate that so wealthy states can have far more than the poorer states (assuming each state will pay for the representatives they send to Congress)?? How much nonsense is this?? No more than the outlandish decision that spending money on elections equals free speech- What a farce!!!!!!

          Prior SC justice John Paul Stevens has even written an article describing how the SC has distorted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

          See This:

          Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?wpisrc=nl_most

        • charleo1 says:

          Your assertions about the SC, Mr. Stamler are incorrect. Plenty of the High Court’s decisions have been reversed over the years. Dred-Scott, for example used the premise that slaves were property, and under the 5Th Amendment found owners had the Right, and law enforcement had the duty to detain, and return said property to it’s lawful owner. Even if that, “property,” had fled to a so called, “Free State.” Another such example of SC reversal, had to do with Capitol punishment. Once banished by the SC, on the
          constitutional grounds that it was cruel, and, or, unusual punishment. An entire industry is dedicated
          to the reversal of Roe V. Wade. If SC decisions were always final, there would be no reason for it’s existence. It is the reason so many Americans are
          working tirelessly to reinstate the campaign finance,
          and reform laws, so obliterated by the Citizens United
          decision. First, it’s premise flies in the face of the spirit
          of The Constitution, in several fundamental ways. And, in some very practical ways as well. First, it doesn’t strengthen the Right to free speech. As nothing that could not be expressed before the decision, may be expressed now, because of it. Secondly, it clearly empowers the speech of some,
          over that of others, by external forces. With those forces having nothing whatsoever to do with the individual’s Rights to express them. Nor does the Court’s decision base this empowerment, in any way
          reflect the validity, or rightness, or strength of the ideas expressed. As I believe the Founders intended. But, in effect, allows any fool with a large bank account, to spew his blabber far, and wide. And by drowning out, with his Court sanctioned bull horn, the possibility of any other ideas to be able to compete in
          a broad, free, and true marketplace of ideas. Where it
          stands of falls on it’s own merit. And not the money
          accompanying it.

          • Elliot J. Stamler says:

            I can only make these observations: first, I never wrote the court doesn’t and hasn’t reversed itself-of course it has. Second, respectfully and not nastily, you need to take a univ-level course in constitutional law or at least read a good textbook because most of what you wrote is simply wrong. Third..money most certainly is associated with speech whether it’s mine, yours, or that of a billionaire. For a further discourse on that I seriously urge you to read a recent column by Robert J. Samuelson, the economic columnist widely syndicated. I don’t expect you will but if you do he takes the time, which I won’t to carefully explain why what you write is legally wrong.

          • charleo1 says:

            “Whether or not any of us likes a particular SC makeup it’s necessary to remember that the SC is not final because it is always right-it is right because it is final.” Your words, so excuse me if I took your use of the word, “final,” at it’s literal meaning.
            final: |ˈfīnl| Adjective coming at the end of a series: the final version of the report was presented.• reached or designed to be reached as the outcome of a process or a series ofevents: the final cost will easily run into six figures.• allowing no further doubt or dispute: the decision of the judging panel is final.

            As far as this money is speech business, you mark
            my word, it will come to no good. As averages go,
            the candidate with the most money wins, 7 out of
            10 times. So, already it’s money that’s become the determiner. And that was before the CU decision.
            It’s now 4X as expensive to become a member of the House from many districts in FL. where I live. And there’s just no doubt as to what income scale the entire process will be beholden to.

    • pisces63 says:

      The only thing unconstitutional was the denial of people of color to vote. They are /were citizens, correct. They were over 21, right. That gave them the constitutional right to vote. Which, again, was unconstitutional? For every cause there is an affect. Because of jim crow, the effect was legislation. Roberts and his hood rats are going along with republicans to take away our voting rights and help the wealthy. Go back to redepressiona and you will see the same thing going on.

  14. Lynda Groom says:

    Translation: This poor soul clearly no idea what is and what is not Constitutional. Why do the voters subject themselves to such trolls?

  15. idamag says:

    He’s from Florida. That explains it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.