Justice Souter to retire
-
Things can change. And usually it is to allow more rights....Civil Rights, Woman Rights, abortion.
It is a more modern trend to take rights away that are written in to the constitution.
That is what can't change.
It is a static document in that regard.
You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.
-
Things can change. And usually it is to allow more rights....Civil Rights, Woman Rights, abortion.
It is a more modern trend to take rights away that are written in to the constitution.
That is what can't change.
It is a static document in that regard.
You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.
-
It doesn't mean it doesn't either.
The National Guard is a militia....those are state units....a neighborhood watch is a militia of sorts.
Militias are very necessary.
The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.
-
It doesn't mean it doesn't either.
The National Guard is a militia....those are state units....a neighborhood watch is a militia of sorts.
Militias are very necessary.
The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.
-
mz. said:
The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.No it isn't, anymore than someone saying the right for women to vote is questionable.
-
What good is the Constitution if it can be politically
adjusted to take out certain parts Obama doesn't like?
But let Bush try to change it... oh... and all hell would break loose.
The politics of self-serving power control is out of the bag, and running
wild like a crazed rhino.
-
mz. said:
The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.No it isn't, anymore than someone saying the right for women to vote is questionable.
-
I think it was Hillary who said that the constitution is a living document and can be changed, but only to liberal likings.
Well it didn't matter because Bill and Hill both took a crap all over it.
Some want it changed to protect their thoughts and actions while others use it for protection of all thoughts and actions.
What a great document we have for Americans, and it is worth protecting and not to allow it to be misconstrude. What other country gives you a Bill of Rights? and that is not a Bill of Special Intrests.
Head or Gut? -
mz. said:
I never said the RIGHT is questionable. I said the NEED.Blargh.
Fair enough, but on that count we disagree.
You may not have a need where others do.
In real terms, I would say the need is as great as it was in frontier days where criminals far outstripped the ability of the law to control them.
Even 25 years ago, you didn't have home invasions and car jackings anywhere near the level we have today. You had stolen cars and home break-ins no doubt, but not the flat out strong armed stuff that takes place everyday.
The killing of the Clutter family in the late 50s not only shocked the nation, it gripped the nation because things like that just didn't happen. Now, something like that still shocks people, but it is becoming so common place, it barely holds the attention for a few days. Now it seems like there has to be a child involved to really grip peoples attention.
-
I think it was Hillary who said that the constitution is a living document and can be changed, but only to liberal likings.
Well it didn't matter because Bill and Hill both took a crap all over it.
Some want it changed to protect their thoughts and actions while others use it for protection of all thoughts and actions.
What a great document we have for Americans, and it is worth protecting and not to allow it to be misconstrude. What other country gives you a Bill of Rights? and that is not a Bill of Special Intrests.
Well it didn't matter because Bill and Hill both took a crap all over it.
and let us not forget the damage shrub did as well.....you feel that an amendment banning gay marriage was just?
face it, the constitution is there to protect us (the people) from them (bureaucrats)....they all want it dissolved....regardless of party.
-
and let us not forget the damage shrub did as well.....you feel that an amendment banning gay marriage was just?
face it, the constitution is there to protect us (the people) from them (bureaucrats)....they all want it dissolved....regardless of party. CHOCO
*******************************
Which amendment is it that guarantees the right of gays to marry specifically? And Bush wanted to
get rid of that amendment?
When did this happen?
I'm just taking a dinner break from planting about 200 strawberry plants...
-
and let us not forget the damage shrub did as well.....you feel that an amendment banning gay marriage was just?
face it, the constitution is there to protect us (the people) from them (bureaucrats)....they all want it dissolved....regardless of party. CHOCO
*******************************
Which amendment is it that guarantees the right of gays to marry specifically? And Bush wanted to
get rid of that amendment?
When did this happen?
I'm just taking a dinner break from planting about 200 strawberry plants...
Which amendment is it that guarantees the right of gays to marry specifically? And Bush wanted to
get rid of that amendment?
Bush wanted to add an anti-marriage amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
Send me some of those strawberries. The ones in the markets here look like shit.
-
Which amendment is it that guarantees the right of gays to marry specifically? And Bush wanted to
get rid of that amendment?
Bush wanted to add an anti-marriage amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
Send me some of those strawberries. The ones in the markets here look like shit.
mz. said:
Bush wanted to add an anti-marriage amendment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
Send me some of those strawberries. The ones in the markets here look like shit.
But mz the pussy the defense of marriage act defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Obama's position.
Probably meant to give small perks to natural familiy units in the old days where the "family" had more respect.
So if Bush (along with at least two thirds of the population) feels that law should not be changed his best course of action is to get it cleared up constitutionally.
Isn't it?
WSS
-
Don't see the logic there.
DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.
If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.
-
I think I have to order more strawberry plants, still have room in the designated
strawberry area.
Went to our grocery, bought strawberries, worked all day,
next say, in the evening, got em out of the fridge, and about a third of em were fuzzy.
I just want the top court in the land to rule what the Constitution says, not be
deciding that it should be ignored per their arrogant opinion that they know best,
or to fit a political movement.
The Constitution rules. And, I do believe we need a federal ruling defining marriage
as of a man and a woman.
Anything else goes against the laws of the universe, the laws of physics, the laws of science,
and the Word of God.
On talk radio, a great caller called in. He said Obama was failing to inspire a lot of
of black folks - a strong majority of "us" he said - vote against gay marriage from state to state.
He said he had a tough time trying to find one reason to really believe in Obama as president.
And, he said blacks in big cities like Detroit and DC and New York... especially Detroit, are hell holes.
And, they are heavily Dem, but the Dems only pander to black voters by claiming "racist" on issues...
enough to try to convince black voters they are on their side. But in Detroit, where has that ever
gotten the black portion of the population? That caller made so much sense, they are talking about
inviting him on the talk show. He was great, and exceptionally articulate in what he wanting to explain.
With two magnets, N-S attract strongly. NN or SS repel strongly. Adam and Eve. End of controversy.
-
Don't see the logic there.
DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.
If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.
Aloysius said:
Don't see the logic there.DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.
If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.
No argument there except possibly the whole premise of better.
In the end, the whole gay rights issue boils down to two M's.
Morality and money.
As a nation under God, is it moral to sanction gay marriage? I am not going to get in to that debate as it more or less comes down to the same issue as abortion. Some think it right, some think it wrong.
The only real benefit a gay couple doesn't enjoy is the transfer of benefit, so it is a issue of money. I don't think many are seeking to make cohabitation illegal. Draconian laws against sodomy are being thrown out or just allowed to gather dust to the point a DA isn't going to dig them out.
Personally, I would like to see tax codes changed where tax isn't determined by marriage, so that would take that out of the mix in so far as gay rights. The transfer of assets isn't a real problem for them anyway as long as a will is in place. A simple act by the parties involved take care of that and keep things out of probate...any person with half a brain should do that no matter their orientation.
I myself while thinking gay is immoral, I don't think it is my place to determine that. if any judgment on that is to take place, I will leave that up to the Creator.
I am all for freedom of choice on the issue of abortion. I myself wouldn't opt for that. Under law if you kill a woman who is carrying child, it can and is in many cases a charge of two homicides. That being the case, i see no distinction between choosing to terminate the life and having it terminated unwillingly.
Also on the freedom of choice issue, if a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy, a man should be afforded the same rights as a woman.
That isn't to say he can force her to terminate the pregnancy if she wants to have the baby, but once he is informed of the pregnancy, through legal means he should be able to opt out of any claims to the child and any responsibility towards the care of that child.
If women can terminate a pregnancy on grounds of finances or not being mentally prepared(or any grounds really) for the serious role of raising a child, and man should have those same options. Men can be as mentally unprepared, financially unprepared, or simply don't want a kid, as a woman.
Do we afford equal rights or do we not?
-
Don't see the logic there.
DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.
If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.
Aloysius said:
Don't see the logic there.DOMA was passed in order to limit the impact of any single state allowing gay marriage. That's much different from the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from doing precisely that.
If anything, your analogy further proves that Obama's better than Bush on gay rights. And so was Bill Clinton.
If in fact you consider marriage a right to be applied to any humans.
I do think Obammy is just lying to keep his base from freaking out.
I suppose the guy who wants kiddie porn legal only in states that want it is better than the guy who wants it banned constitutionally if you're a child molester.
But seriously I didn't take you for a states rights guy.
WSS
-
mz. said:
"One nation under God" is being taken way too literally and is screwing us all.
Not taking it literally enough is what is screwing us all.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login