Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Political Talk Political Talk Forum - Discuss and debate politics


Thanks Tree18Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 28th, 2018, 11:48 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
In the partisan fog hanging thickly over the US, amending the Constitution has become impossible.

What constitutional issue could garner the required bipartisan support?

What amendment could be ratified by three-fourths of the states?

For the time being, there's no way to amend the Constitution.
Then that is how it will be. Because to start down a path of changing the meaning of laws without amending the laws is nothing more than anarchy. The Constitution is designed to change through a process that has never been easy. Even the civil war itself did not change the law or amend the Constitution of the United States of America. It was legislative action through amendments and votes that did that. So, it should not be twitter, or meto or sjw whoever that affects legal change without a legislative process.
Thanks from Frozen Tundra
guy39 is offline  
Old January 28th, 2018, 12:41 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
There are 19 bills of Rights.

they are clear on what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT do to us

1. Not suppose to create a national religion. But is also not suppose to prevent us from EXPRESSING our religion.. (What government cannot do)

2. The only right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the individual's right to bear arms.

3. Private property rights and they cannot force soldiers into our homes to live

4. They cannot search us without PROBALBLE cause.

5. DUE PROCESS and the right to not incriminate ourselves

6. Trials are not to be drawn out pitting a government with unlimited funds to bankrupt and out last an innocent person's power to fight the charges.

7. We have a right to be judged by our pears not by a Govenrment official

8. Punishments should fit the crime

9. Government cannot limit the rights granted by the constitution

10. The FEDERAL government cannot do anything that is not EXPRESSLY defined in the constitution if the Constitution does not in clear wording give the power to the Federal Government the federal government is not to have to power enforce.
False there are 17 enumerated powers....The left tries to add "to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States"....These are in the preamble to Art.1 Sec.8, The preamble tells you what the following Section will address.. To count them in is redundant.....
Thanks from Frozen Tundra
Jimgorn is offline  
Old January 29th, 2018, 07:47 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
its insane to you but the Constitution changes only with the proper legislative processes. Are you suggesting it just simply needs to be reinterpreted? If so you are very wrong.
It does not need to be "reinterpreted". I'm not one of those living document people.

There are people on here that will beat a dead horse until it's bones are sun bleached and finer than talcum powder over what they say were FF's intent behind an amendment, article or clause. However, what one FF said in a letter or wrote in an article, and what he agreed to in the actual amendment may be two very different things.

This country was founded right at the beginning of a great age of exploration, discovery and fundamental changes in society. I believe the FF knew there were changes coming. Some they could not imagine or envision, some they could. Slavery was already a topic of discussion. I believe they deliberately left certain articles and amendments loosely or vaguely worded so they would not become an impediment to society. So we would not be constantly having to rewrite the constitution.

What judges have to do is figure out how modern issues fit within the framework of our laws.

Gay marriage is a good one. The FF certainly knew of gays. Hell I'm betting at least one of them was gay. But I doubt they could have foreseen a day when gays would be openly accepted in society. The word "EXCEPT" doesn't appear anywhere in the 14th amendment. It doesn't say EXCEPT gays or EXCEPT non Christians. It says "nor deny any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws". While you may not like it, the only real question before the judges concerning gay marriage was whether or not there was a legitimate legal reason for criminalizing their behavior, then using that criminal activity to deny them equal protection under the law.

Since the only reasons I've ever heard from opponents were religious in nature, that means the first amendment applies. It's says you can't use the government to support YOUR religious beliefs. Since the first prohibits you from using your religion to deny someone their rights, the fourteenth says they must receive equal protection under the law.

It's not a reinterpretation, it's simply figuring out if, and then how, a change in society fits within the frame work.
Thanks from imaginethat and Polari
BubbaJones is offline  
Old January 29th, 2018, 10:01 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 58,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Then that is how it will be. Because to start down a path of changing the meaning of laws without amending the laws is nothing more than anarchy. The Constitution is designed to change through a process that has never been easy. Even the civil war itself did not change the law or amend the Constitution of the United States of America. It was legislative action through amendments and votes that did that. So, it should not be twitter, or meto or sjw whoever that affects legal change without a legislative process.
I understand. That means we'll have to live with birthright citizenship:
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.
And that's too bad. That really should be changed.
Thanks from Clara007
imaginethat is online now  
Old January 29th, 2018, 10:36 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I understand. That means we'll have to live with birthright citizenship:
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.
And that's too bad. That really should be changed.


This is another BRAND of hypocrisy for the Right. They fawn over the constitution--its brilliance--its durability-- its vision--IT's DEAD....but HOW they wish they could change just a few things. Examples:
*The 17th Amendment--no direct election of senators. Let the STATES do it. Just ask Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, Rick Perry, and God-like Justice Antonin Scalia.
*No birthright citizenship. No way. No how.
*The Parental Rights Amendment---heaven forbid the government (public schools?) educate and care for our children.
*Flag desecration--BAD. Wearing flag t-shirts, bathing suits, stars and stripes hats, and Confederate flags--GOOD.
*Throw out Roe v Wade.
*No Gay MARRIAGE.
*Restrict the president's power to negotiate treaties, although as long as Trump does it--IT IS AWESOME.

I'm sure there are some I have missed. Blech.
Clara007 is offline  
Old January 29th, 2018, 12:53 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I understand. That means we'll have to live with birthright citizenship:
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.
And that's too bad. That really should be changed.
Another good reason to have immigration reform huh
guy39 is offline  
Old January 29th, 2018, 02:54 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I understand. That means we'll have to live with birthright citizenship:
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.
And that's too bad. That really should be changed.
Don't need to change it. Congress has the authority to pass legislation defining "born" to whom and under what circumstances. We already have an exception for diplomats. Why not simply extend that to anyone not here legally or here as a visitor and NOT seeking citizenship ??
BubbaJones is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Tags
thinks



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do you think the world thinks goodpen Current Events 20 May 1st, 2017 05:04 AM
Anybody that thinks Trump is going to .... BubbaJones Americas 10 November 15th, 2015 12:41 PM
Feinstein thinks all of us are stupid. pana8 Current Events 8 December 1st, 2013 09:45 PM
Who thinks Weed should be legalized? ShatteredHorizons Opinion Polls 241 March 29th, 2012 05:46 PM
i do thinks me is confused starshell_fire New Users 1 August 9th, 2009 07:34 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.