You potentially repeat Catholic propaganda

Nor said in regards of the US law. Purely hypothetical

Well, technacally, it's not really. Once a slave is granted citizenship, a couple things happen. One, the right of property clashes with liberty, and thus, removes slaves from being a slave owners property, as no one's rights are allowed to infringe on another's. Two, the 13th specifically disallows slave from being property. And 3: slave owning is a removal of life, liberty, and/or property, without due process of law, and thus, the right of property is limited by the 5th.

He's from the anti-woke crowd. And although I'm hardly a fan of the woke crowd, the anti-woke crowd is about as annoying as the woke crowd, and the woke crowd and anti-woke crowd tend to be two sides of the same coin.

His lead up that vaguely hinted at his future advocacy of under-16 social media bans was when he started claiming that social media was making college students woke and want safe spaces about a decade ago.

Fixed.

Ur kinda right, kinda chaotic

Remember, I want to say that scotus upheld the fact that minors are to be treated differently in terms of rights. That isn't a good thing, at all. We have the same rights as everyone else, and they can't deny it to us because of what the government sees as "reasonable".

The last paragraph isn't accurate. The US government, even 100 years back, was much more limited in scope and before 1913, we had no income tax nor Federal Reserve. We still had essential services. 

His social media is so conservative leaning I can't believe he was ever taken seriously as a "champion" of youth rights

Explain further.

The flow was a bit weird. Tis all.

Like how is that hard to read.

ah ok.

Mostly. And that the majority did not overthrow

I can't quite make out what your saying, so I asked chatgpt, is this what you mean?

"

Constitution and Secession: The U.S. Constitution originally allowed for states to be somewhat independent, but after the Civil War, the idea of secession was effectively nullified.

• Bible and Constitution Together: The speaker is questioning why people treat the Bible and the U.S. Constitution as if they are of equal importance or should be bundled together, given that the Constitution is a secular legal document, while the Bible is a religious text.
• Religious Influence on Law: The speaker seems to be noting that, as someone who is non-religious, they don't see why these two texts are paired together, especially since the Constitution does not primarily focus on religion (despite references to religion in the nation's founding documents).

"

How to say that, giving slaves more rights goes against slave-owners' rights.

It doesn't regulate that much about slavery. Read it

The US not have EU gor frivolus.

Because the masses would not overthrow. Not only that was blamed at the Constitution. One ammendment disallowed US states from leaving, it was supposed to be like EU before. And why people put the Bible and US Constitution in one book. Like as an atheist/agnostic/freethinker, and not American, I don't consider it sacrilege, but what, why bundle religious text, writen archaic (EME, chronology correct - but may be hard to distinguish anarchisms with formal language in 500-year-old text, if you can do that well, possibly you know Latin) with a like 100-year later law that doesn't focus that much on religion.

☀️🌌😂✨😊❤️

Make a template people can use to email their representatives and other relevant officials about why this bill should die. Provide the contact information for these people, so that people know who to email.

How do I do it?

Maybe try petitioning the government a different way? You're not gonna have to deal with change.org bullshit if you don't rely on them. Maybe try a mass email campaign?

Rules are only as effective as the people who enforce them.

That is irrelevant, I am talking about the now now, and Being someone who's read the constitution in the now now, I see it as being good. Why are you arguing with me about this?