# Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution 

 
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."


----------



## sangha (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."



Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



Stop corrupting it and there wont be a problem.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



Right Sangha. Republicans are the only people that have ever ammended the constitution (not that they could if they wanted to......minor oversight in your quick attempt to get a jab in).


----------



## sangha (Nov 12, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...



I don't see any dems claiming to be Originalists or Strict Constructionists, or claiming that the Constitution has been "corrupted"


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....

except for gun ownership, of course.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...


The amendment process was written in to the original document, fool.

It's the judiciary making law and "interpretations" up out of whole cloth that wasn't.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


That's because you only hear what you've tuned your Fabian socialist ears to hear.

Constructionists also abhor the corruption of original intent that are the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



That might have something to do with the fact that a Non-Originalist interpretation of the Constitution is one of the basics of American liberalism. Among those who read it, anyway. Cluelessness about the COTUS isn't confined to one side of the spectrum.


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.


You are correct.
The Dems just throw the whole thing out, no picking and choosing for them.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."



Gee ... and here I though it was to take away our right to pee....


----------



## westwall (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> 
> the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....
> 
> except for gun ownership, of course.







Jillian, you dissapoint me, of course they do.  The 2nd Amendment is a "state" right according to most Dems.  Not a individual right.  The fact that it is listed second in the Bill of Rights seems to belie their contention but hey they can pick and choose with the best of them.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."




So when Congress votes to freeze their pay, then no citizen would be allowed to have a raise?


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 12, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



oh man, are we safe from THAT ever happening.


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."




Dumb fucking idea put forth by ignorant fools who spend too much time in the echo chambers of cable news and partisan noise machines.


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> ...



i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

and i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who actually understood a single thing about the constitution, no matter how many times they say the words.

but thanks for playing.


----------



## konradv (Nov 12, 2010)

Oddball said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



There is no such thing as "original intent".  That's a phony premise that would have us believe that all the Founders were of the same mind.  There were actually "original intents", which is why we have a relatively short and in some ways vague document, necessitating courts to make interpretations.  As Jefferson said, it's for each generation to decide what it means and that we're not bound to their interpretation.

_"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors._  Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson quotes


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

Dante said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



It's a reactionary proposal and would add nothing to the American way of life and the political debate.

It's bullshit


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


and Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, nit the framers or signers of the US Constitution. 

Oddball Dude, be not too bright


----------



## GHook93 (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



Hey Dumbass! Only 10 amendments were part of the ORIGINAL constitution! In your retard mind you trying to say that wingnutz don't approve of the 13th amendment, equal protection clause, 2 terms, no poll tax, sufferage for woman and Blacks etc.

Go fuck yourself!


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



"Original intent" is a made up concept that doesn't actually exist in constitutional construction.  And while Jefferson's words were nice and offer guidance, they aren't enforceable as law. Jefferson, Madison, et al, while great men, were no more than the politicians of their day. It isn't for them to tell later generations how to INTERPRET the words of the constitution.

And what the wingnuts seem not to understand is that words need to be interpreted. They do not exist in a vacuum.

And the concept that an Amendment can be somehow "unconstitutional" shows that they have no understanding of what the word unconstitutional means since, if it is part of the constitution, whether via the original words or later amendment, it is, by definition, Constitutional.

But the loons don't like the constitution. They only like what they want to pretend it is.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...



The ORIGINAL Constitution had no Amendments, by definition. 

Try again.


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution. 

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Isn't the First Amendment also the first section of the Bill of Rights? When did the Constitution become law of the land? When was the Constitution signed by all parties. Did it need 8 and not 13 states to become law of the land?


stop playing gotcha games and add something to the debate.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

Dante said:


> Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.
> 
> We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!



It isn't called the Grand Compromise for no reason. 

Which Founding Fathers have an absolute lock on truth? Whose opinion is "the" opinion? It can be enlightening to read what they had to say, but it isn't anything that binds us to one POV today. 

Founding Fathers is a misnomer anyway, not all of the Framers were the same people as those who Founded the nation. The folks who use the terms interchangeably, forgetting the years in between the Declaration and ratification of the COTUS, make me wonder sometimes.

Not as much as the people who _mistake_ the Declaration for the COTUS  But wonder all the same.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> 
> the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....
> 
> except for gun ownership, of course.



No, you are absolutely right, they don't pick and choose the parts they don't like.  They simply twist the meaning of words around to make the Constitution say just exactly what they want it to say.

Immie


----------



## GHook93 (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Come on Jillian, only the extremes want to get rid of Separation of Church and State (which was case law interpretted from the constition and not directly stated in the constitution, similar to the right to privacy), habeas Corpus (you are pointing to the fact that Americans don't want Habeas Corpus rights for Non-American Terrorist? - That is a grasp at straws), Equal Protection Clause (LOL, based on what!), the 4th amendment (are you being serious) and birthright clause (ya got one, because its being used well beyond its intended legislative purpose to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and not to protect the rights of the children of criminals)!

I haven't met a liberal that didn't want to get rid of: (1) Freedom of Religion and Fress exercise there of, (2) Freedom of Press (was it Sean Penn that stated Americans that critize Hugo Chavez should be tossed in jail), (3) Freedom of Speech (Fairness Doctrine, constantly pulling fire alarms when conservatives speak on campus, unruly protest that shut down conservative events etc., (4) 2nd amendment - No explanation needed, (5) 10th amendment, grow the federal government because the States have no rights, (6) Equal Protection Clause (affirmative action!) and (7) The 13th Amendment, because they want to make us all slaves via taxes, spending and socialism (OK I added this one in for fun)!


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

Dante said:


> Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.
> 
> We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!



The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



Clearly you do not understand being a constitutionalists at all. The Amendment process is a part of the constitution and should be supported as such.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."



this was in Newts Contract with America around 30 years ago.  And the republicans still have not passed it.
I wonder why?


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



Gee, I wonder.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.
> ...



bullshit----that was the best compromise they could come up with at the time.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...



And anyone who believes they will now still believes in Santa Claus.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



30 years ago? More like the mid 90'S


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Thank goodness I'm not "a rightwingnut". I guess maybe it's your inability to make crucial distinctions that has you dog paddling around in circles concerning what people are labeled. It's nice to know that the label police are keeping an eye out for my 1st amendment rights.
Hey BTW, hows that 1st amendment fairness doctrine thing the Dems keep talking about going.
Actually I'm for following the Constitution to the letter without additional amendments, but that type of shock and awe would decapitate our government.
Thanks for playing and good try...............


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship



Care to provide some proof that everyone of us on the right want to do away with separation, and Habeus corpus, and equal treatment?

Or even easier care to show us one link where a serious argument is being made by anyone on the right against Habeus Corpus, or Equal Treatment?

Or is that just you assuming you know what people think despite what they say again?


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.
> ...


What a crock of shit and wrong too.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



What she ignores, is that is HOW ALL countries were back then. It is not like we were the only ones who did not let women and Minorities vote.

Thanks to the AMENDMENT PROCESS, They can now. See how that works.

So tell us again how it is not Supporting the Original Intent of the constitution when you support a CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment? 

What I do not support is the meaning of the constitution being changed through the courts. I fully support any attempt to Amend the constitution as long as the process is followed.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship
> ...



How is this any different from what so many of the right claim, that the entire left is in support of a fairness doctrine, doing away with the Second, doing away with freedom of press, doing away with free exercise, ad nauseating?

That some on the right advocate selective application of Habeas and the 5th is evident on the current Gitmo thread floating around here somewheres. The threads with some on the right advocating doing away with the 14th's DP/EP clauses altogether are scattered around like dandelions in my back yard.  

Perhaps not fair to accuse you specifically of these things, but it's a position many on the right take. /shrug


----------



## Sallow (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> 
> the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....
> 
> except for gun ownership, of course.



That is probably the most mis-interpreted amendment in the Constitution.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Oh really. You think some of the slave-owning founders meant for the slaves to vote? Why the heck do you think there had to be amendments to the Constitution giving voting right to women and black people? And..abolishing slavery?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 12, 2010)

snopes.com: 28th Amendment

Snopes says BS....Congress is currently not exempt from the laws they pass


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

Political advertisments/speeches are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising laws.
I would call that functional exemption.

And can they just be arrested like any citizen?


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 12, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



To finally fulfill the founders intent ?


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 12, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



To answer it is not any different and I think it is Bullshit when either side does it.

Pigeonholing sucks.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



You're absolutely right.


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.
> ...


I apologize. We are in the same page. How stupid of me. Whatever is going around in this place, it is definitely catchy.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 12, 2010)

sangha said:


> Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.



Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent.  Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 12, 2010)

Dante said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Crazy is always contagious! But never fear, there is a cure. Alcohol kills germs.


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


Right on target!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tom Clancy (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> 
> the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....
> 
> except for gun ownership, of course.



They don't? 

Funny, most Democrats are in favor of either banning the 2nd Amendment (Which is part of the Bill of Rights.) or Taxing the shit out of it, till it's pretty impossible to buy ammo or guns.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 12, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.
> ...



Won't you admit that for a document they claim to love so much, they sure want to change a lot of it


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

Back on congressional exmeptions.
I think they did have to start paying social security.
Unless I am mistake they were exempt for a long time.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Nov 12, 2010)

Why all the fuss?  Nobody in Washington believes in the Constitution anymore, at least, their actions don't show it.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

-- By one count, only 61 of the 2,500 senior policy staff members working for the Senate are black. There are, however, no exact records -- because Congress has exempted itself from equal-opportunity and affirmative-action laws.

-- House Speaker Jim Wright's office catches fire, but there are no sprinklers. The laws requiring them do not apply to the Capitol or other federal buildings.

-- A controversy erupts over dangerous working conditions in the Capitol's mail-folding room, where newsletters are processed. Congress does not fall under the occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations that bedevil other employers.

-- Legislators are about to decide whether to raise the federal minimum-wage level for the first time in seven years. At the moment, however, the minimum- wage laws do not protect the 15,000 people who work for Congress.

-- Congressional Aide Tom Pappas leaps to his death after it is revealed that for years he engaged in unorthodox employment practices, including advertising for single young men (photographs requested) and making unusual demands on their social lives. Congress has exempted itself from equal-employment laws that might prevent such practices in private industry.

-- Michael Deaver and Lyn Nofziger face jail terms because their lobbying ran afoul of the Ethics in Government Law. Congressmen and their staffers who become lobbyists and do the same things have no fear: the law does not apply to them.

Congress's attitude, says Senator John Glenn, "is the rankest form of hypocrisy. Laws that are good enough for everybody else ought to be good enough for us." Instead, Congress has exempted itself from a broad array of laws covering civil rights, minimum wages, and safety requirements and discrimination. "Congress would exempt itself from the laws of gravity if it could," says Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde.

As a result, practices that would provoke lawsuits elsewhere go virtually unnoticed on Capitol Hill. "We have Congressmen who discriminate against blacks, against whites, against Hispanics, against women," says Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson. Says Jackie Parker of the Senate Black Legislative Caucus: "There are offices that employ no blacks at all." An investigation found that of the 152 Senate employees earning more than $70,000 a year, only 18 are women.

One place on Capitol Hill where most employees are black is the House folding room. Workers there complain that they are sometimes forced to labor 70-hour weeks under sweatshop conditions. A House committee found that the dingy basement room has poor air circulation and that it exposes workers to noxious fumes.

Defenders of congressional exemptions point out that legislators face special pressures: they often need to employ home-district personnel or friends of supporters. Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House, says Congress historically has not placed itself under the yoke of various laws to protect itself from inter-Government conflicts. Imagine, he says, the Justice Department using charges of job discrimination to harass unfriendly Congressmen. Besides, "the reality of going before the voters and seeking election should force Congressmen to behave," he says.



Read more: Above Their Own Laws - TIME


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...



that seems to be the new meme of the right.


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> -- By one count, only 61 of the 2,500 senior policy staff members working for the Senate are black. There are, however, no exact records -- because Congress has exempted itself from equal-opportunity and affirmative-action laws.
> 
> -- House Speaker Jim Wright's office catches fire, but there are no sprinklers. The laws requiring them do not apply to the Capitol or other federal buildings.
> 
> ...



Oh my.......
Sounds like the Congress has created a special class of citizen.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Back on congressional exmeptions.
> I think they did have to start paying social security.
> Unless I am mistake they were exempt for a long time.



Yea ..they have only been paying for 25 years

We really need this amendmet


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.
> ...



and our elitist founding fathers made the amendment process especially difficult because they had very little confidence in 'the people' as a mob.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

I think the no smoking in govt buildings law does not apply to congress as well.
And probably the law on no booze in govt buildings as well.

I know in FL it did not apply to federal judges offices.


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> ...



i think that's a pretty far stretch. I know I think unless the 2nd were repealed, it has to be respected like any other amendment. what i believe, though, is that it was misconstrued by the Court and that scalia intentionally drafted an overbroad and overreaching decision. but nonetheless... it's what the decision is.


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Back on congressional exmeptions.
> ...



Only 25?
Did they not pay as a protest?


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 12, 2010)

The next thing you know some Con will reintroduce slavery, Oh wait!
HR 5741.............


----------



## jillian (Nov 12, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> The next thing you know some Con will reintroduce slavery, Oh wait!
> HR 5741.............



clearly your understanding of the definition of slavery is as limited as your understanding of the constitution.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 12, 2010)

The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party.  It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

Gunny said:


> The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party.  It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.





fall off the wagon Gunny?


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

Hey we got Gunny out of his foxhole.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 12, 2010)

Dante said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party.  It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.
> ...



Naah a wheel fell of of it and he has been looking for a wagonjack.


----------



## westwall (Nov 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...






Oh do tell, what is your interpretation of it?


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Hey we got Gunny out of his foxhole.



Rehab the hole?


----------



## Dante (Nov 12, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



A wheel fell off? He was running on three.


----------



## westwall (Nov 12, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> snopes.com: 28th Amendment
> 
> Snopes says BS....Congress is currently not exempt from the laws they pass






well it looks like Snopes got one wrong...

Above Their Own Laws - TIME


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 13, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> ...



Hardy-har-har. This is corny and untrue.


----------



## The T (Nov 13, 2010)

Dante said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


 
All law is based upon Constitutionality smartass.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > snopes.com: 28th Amendment
> ...



actually, not. your 1988 article was talking about a particular circumstance that may or may not have been an issue at the time.

you really think that 22 year old article in a newspaper i'm betting you'd reject out of hand if it talked about global warming, has more valididty than snopes today?

ummmm... not so much.

valiant effort though.


----------



## The T (Nov 13, 2010)

Capitalist said:


> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."


 
Last time I checked? Electeds are citizens...albiet some need to move elsewhere for the damage they've caused to this Republic.


----------



## editec (Nov 13, 2010)

Debating the "original intent" of the framer of the Consitution is an excerise in futility.

Demanding that "literal interpretation" be imposed on us, likewise indicates that the people demanding such a thing lack the intellectual horsepower to understand just how impossible such a thing really is.

The Consitution itself is vaguely written in large part.

The framers didn't want it to TIE the hands of future governments, that's exactly why they put mechanisms and remedies  in place to modify it as needed.

They knew, what apparently some of us don't.

LIFE belongs to the LIVING.


----------



## The T (Nov 13, 2010)

editec said:


> Debating the "original intent" of the framer of the Consitution is an excerise in futility.
> 
> Demanding that "literal interpretation" be imposed on us, likewise indicates that the people demanding such a thing lack the intellectual horsepower to understand just how impossible such a thing really is.
> 
> ...


 
Cheap and taudry excuse. If it was so 'vague'? Why bother with it in the first place if they didn't mean it?

We still have laws that were written long ago by a bunch of _DEAD GUYS_...why pay attention to those laws?

But more to the point is that the Government has been usurping the Document by writing LAW that are designed specifically deny the existence of the Document...and usually winds up costing us _rubes _our liberties, while the elitists enjoy not subjecting themselves to the same laws they write.

Last time I looked? Congresscritters were citizens same as any of us. Only they are elected (entrusted) to protect our liberties...they have to date been quite _abusive _to those that have given that trust.

They had better rember this one thing? That trust can be _revoked_ at any time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Look at it this way if a democrat would say the constitution has been corrupted he would be going against the democrats core values of entitlement programs.


----------



## nraforlife (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> 
> ...............



True they don't like or follow any of it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> 
> the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....
> 
> except for gun ownership, of course.



You show your abject stupidity yet again, go ahead provide for us the context of how EVERY amendment presented whether approved or not was presented by a Conservative or Conservative view point. Or admit you are full of shit and apologize.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
> ...



apologize for what, loon? you make up things about what you think other people believe and lie about what they say and think.

now run along. sheesh. it must take so much energy to be as angry and nasty as you are all the time.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about. the constitution ain't your thing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



You are an abject failure, you sure you were awake when they taught you about the Constitution?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Come on I will narrow it down for you you dumb ass. Go ahead provide to us ALL the Amendments that TAKE AWAY rights. You want to claim A) conservatives are all about taking rights away and B) Liberals never propose amendments. SO every Amendment must have, according to you, been recommended and then passed by a Conservative super majority. Go ahead prove your point you lying sack of shit.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Telford Taylor, moron. 

Any more questions, you freaking ovemedicated, delusional lunatic?

now run along and bother someone else.

As for being a failure, you really want to compare lives, darlin'?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



ok lets do it this way for those mindless.
What entitlement programs are garranteed in the Constitution? And jillian I am years ahead of you on understanding the Constitution. You are just a babe in the woods.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The only one dumb here is you, dear.

Again, piss off, you aren't worth the time of day.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And yet I'm the one admitted to practice before the supreme court and who's argued and won cases before the second and first circuit courts of appeal.

so want to rethink?

just because a rodeo clown named glen beck told you that you know something about the constitution, doesn't mean you do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



There are only 27 of them. Are you admitting you are full of shit so easy? Come on point to one that was passed that restricts rights and you are opposed to.

Maybe the 14th Amendment? How about the 4th and 5th? You made a claim, back it up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



And your point? I don't care what you say you have done on the internet, doesn't mean a thing to me. What means something to me is what you post here. And what you post here is weak and shows me that I am years ahead of you understanding the Constitution. Hell I understand it better than obama.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



are you really not understanding? on the internet??? you really that stupid?? it's what i've been paid well for for 20 years. 

and if you think you understand the constitution better than obama, yeah, well my 13 year old thinks he's capable of making his own decisions.

doesn't mean either of you know what you're talking about.  the high court doesn't even agree on what the constitution means, but some yahoo sitting in his basement in front of a computer screen thinks he does? i'd never presume the kind of expertise you think you have...... just more knowledge than you.

like i said, just because a rodeo clown tells you that you're informed, doesn't mean you are.

*walks away laughing butt off at you*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Actually I am a Supreme Court Justice . I just say I am a plumber so I do not make you feel bad and inadequate. See how that works? I do not care what you say you have done on a internet discussion board. However what you post here does show you do not know anything about the constitution.
I am sitting here laughing my ass off at you


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I know what i do for a living. and i know who i've represented and what i've done. 

i certainly don't need validation from one of the more ignorant people on the board.

thanks for playing, nutbar. 

but its clear from your every post you make that you're an uneducated wingnut


----------



## The T (Nov 13, 2010)

According to *SNOPES* on this subject...

They claim it is "_mostly false_ "...but I think it's a great idea under the umbrella of the people holding an ever growing intrusive Government responsible.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



As I said what you say you do for a living and what you post on the internet does not add up. What you post on the subject concerning the Constitution is weak.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



And yet in this thread you CLAIMED the right supported and passed Amendments that restrict other peoples lives. PLEASE, there are only 27 of them, point out the ones you mean. And then provide evidence the Conservatives passed them.


----------



## sangha (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wingnuts don't do facts. And they never stand up for the wacky claims. 

Signed

Justice Scalia


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Perhaps you can help her? I mean there are only 27 of them. Or are you calling Jillian a wingnut?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Shes praticed before the Supreme court.


jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Nov 13, 2010)

This is right up there with the prohibition amendment.

stupid fucking mob mentality with bumper sticker slogan solutions.

"Just say no" to constitutional amendments that make the American electorate look like what they are -- stupid fucks


----------



## The T (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
He said that? _really?_


----------



## sangha (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.

And the right opposed the 13th, 19th, 24th and the 26th

They support making English the official language, and prohibiting gay marriage, both of which restricts peoples' rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


Which is why America is in the shape it's in
People found out they could vote themself a hand out with the election of their favorite guy.


----------



## sangha (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Thank you for confirming that wingnuts want to alter the constitution to limit the peoples' rights.

They also support an amendment banning abortion


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Liberals are pro abortion and anti death penalty
They want to kill the innocent and save the guilty


----------



## sangha (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Thank you for confirming that wingnuts want to alter the constitution to limit the peoples' rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Man was this thread correct
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/141489-heads-up-thread-for-conservatives.html


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



still whining, nutter?

it's a pity when you allow your delusions to obstruct your brain.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



delusions? It's delusional to think that someone will believe what a person says on the internet

"And yet I'm the one admitted to practice before the supreme court" when what they post does not show that they actually know what they are talking about.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



someone who unclogs toilets for a living doesn't *have* to believe me.

i can't help it if your head is filled with what you unclog every day. 

and the neg was for questioning my bona fides. mmmmkay?


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2010)

see, that's the thing about you rightwingnut insane losers... you can't have differences with anyone. Anyone you disagree with is the enemy. 

what a pissant you are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2010)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Actually I am a Supreme Court Justice. I just say I am a plumber so I do not make you feel bad and inadequate.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Not really, but I guess it depends on how you quantify "a lot."  How many amendments have the conservatives really proposed since the surge of modern conservatism, ie. the Reagan years?  They've suggested amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion and to define marriage, neither of which I agree with.  I think they tried an amendment for term limits in 1995 that failed.  Other than that, I can't think of anything else they've seriously discussed amending.


----------



## sangha (Nov 13, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Another wingnut admits that the right wants to limit the peoples' rights 

And of course you can't think of anything else. Even though I posted a list of several, you still can't think of them.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > I know what i do for a living. and i know who i've represented and what i've done.
> ...



Prohibition was passed by conservatives.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Of course I "admit" it, as if there is some reason I wouldn't.  I've made that same criticism many times, you dumb ass, if you'd bother to read.  You sit there calling other people wingnuts when you're about the only one here who truly qualifies for the label.  As is typical with intellectual midgets like you, you're the embodiment of everything you criticize in other people.

Neither the right nor the left believe in limited government and personal responsibility.  The only difference between the two is that the left is honest about it and the right lies about it.


----------



## Dante (Nov 14, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Conservatives fought what proposed amendments?

Start with the Equal Rights amendment and work your way back.

The right, conservatism, has fought every single amendment that was proposed to make equality in America a reality. Conservatives fought Lincoln.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 14, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Lincoln was a racist.


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 14, 2010)

... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.


----------



## westwall (Nov 14, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...






Last time I checked it was the REPUBLICANS who worked with LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over the yowling and howling of the Democrats.  Or is that just my imagination?

You will please note the wide margins of support from the Republican party as opposed to the Democrat party.

Get thee back to school.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2010)

newpolitics said:


> ... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.



 retarded one Are you saying lincoln wasn't a racist?


----------



## newpolitics (Nov 15, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > ... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.
> ...



Actually, I don't know. What is important here is that it doesn't matter whether he was or he wasn't racist, because that is his personal business. His actions as President speak louder than words, and are what are importantly historically and what he did stood for liberty for all, which is a LITTLE more important than how he felt personally about some people. Him being was racist, as you claim, was a red herring in the context of the argument that was being stated. I can be a total racist, xenophobe, and everybody could know it, but if I gave all of my wealth to a charity foundation to help promote equality, would what I felt or believed really matter to anyone? No. What would be important was that I gave to help create equality. That is my point. Actions speak way louder than words or personal beliefs, especially when you are POTUS.  

Lincoln's actions led to THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY. Who really cares what his motivations or his personal beliefs are? Do you think slaves really cared? I doubt it. Further, I don't believe he was a racist, I am just stating a case that even if it WERE true, it wouldn't fucking matter. Retarded one...


----------



## konradv (Nov 15, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.
> ...



OK, but you still believe in a non-existent concept, "original intent".  There never was any such thing, it presumes all the Founders were of like mind.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 15, 2010)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



He said conservatives fought the equal rights amendment, not Republicans.  The Republicans and Democrats of today are not the same Republicans and Democrats of 50 years ago.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 15, 2010)

konradv said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Yes, I do believe in original intent.  You are correct that the Founders did not see everything the same way.  That is evident in the debates between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton over the "general welfare" clause, for example, but there are parts of the Constitution where it is more than obvious what was intended, such as the Second Amendment.  The Federalist Papers are a good reference for original intent.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2010)

newpolitics said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Get informed

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.  Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 15, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Concerning Emancipation: Fourth Debate



> *Background*
> 
> In 1858, Senator Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln faced each other in a series of seven debates in the race for Illinois senator. The central question was whether slavery should be extended to the territories: Douglas and the Democratic party believed that the territories themselves should decide whether to allow slavery, whereas Lincoln and his new Republican party believed that slavery should be banned from the territories. The Dred Scott case of 1857 said that neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could exclude slavery from a territory and that no African American, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States.



Sounds to me like that was probably the Politically Correct thing to say back then.  That does not necessarily mean that he believed what he said... not withstanding the fact that we are talking about "Honest Abe".

In other words, most likely he said that because he was a politician and saying something different would have cost him votes.

Frigging liberals and their insistence that everyone has to remain PC!  

Immie


----------



## Liberty (Nov 15, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.
> ...



after i have disproved this falsehood multiple times in multiple threads i see you still spouting it, knowing full well that you are full of shit...that says A LOT about your character.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



If thats what you think so be it.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 15, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...


wingnut morons like YOU want to ignore it and have laws written that violate it
amending it IS the constitutional way to do thing


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 15, 2010)

jillian said:


> [The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.



That's not entirely true.  Slavery was a huge issue when the nation was being formed and they fought over it profusely.  The northerners were opposed to slavery and the southerners were in favor of it for economic reasons.  Ultimately, the north caved because with the British at their doorstep they felt it was of more urgency to provide for a united front against Britain, allowing for the issue of slavery to be addressed at a later time, which we did, though I imagine not the way they would have envisioned.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 16, 2010)

jillian said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Now you have. What a fucking joke you are Jillian.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 16, 2010)

sangha said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Maybe you need to reevauluate your premise that the right is composed entirely or even predominantly of social conservatives.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2010)

jillian said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...





> and i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who actually understood a single thing about the constitution, no matter how many times they say the words.



I laugh at you when you make a claim like this added with the other comments.
There is no such thing as seperation of Church and state
Do you know what habeas corpus? No one wants to do away with this
4th Amendment? What American citizen wants to take this away from another American Citizen?

OH I get it this is your bitch session for non Americans  and gitmo.  As I said you do not understand the subject you are talking about and claim Right wingers do not understand the Constitution.
Only American citizens are granted rights protected by the bill of Rights. So try again.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Even the 2nd amendment isn't that obvious.  Why in that amendment does it refer to "the people" as having the right with in the 4th it's "a person"?   Sounds like the 2nd is a "collective right", while the 4th is a "personal right".   That and the "militia" clause, make even the second unclear.


----------



## Ozmar (Nov 17, 2010)

sangha said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
> ...



Yep, screw the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Capitalist (Nov 17, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 17, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...


um, sangha is a wingnut


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2010)

konradv said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






It's very obvious if you understand basic English.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 17, 2010)

konradv said:


> Even the 2nd amendment isn't that obvious.  Why in that amendment does it refer to "the people" as having the right with in the 4th it's "a person"?   Sounds like the 2nd is a "collective right", while the 4th is a "personal right".   That and the "militia" clause, make even the second unclear.



I think the inclusion of the militia concept actually makes it clearer as to the intent of the ammendment. The purpose was so that the people would have a defense against the central government should it become truly tyrannical. The inclusion of militia implies it is intended for the states to be able to defend themselves against the central government with force if necessary. 

In a more general sense it clearly implies that people have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if neccessary.


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Boy are you dumb!!

Even the link you posted shows that a majority from BOTH parties voted for the CRA.

Besides, we're not talking D vs R; We're talking convervative vs liberal, and the dems that opposed the CRA, like the reps who opposed the CRA, were CONSERVATIVES

Try to keep up with the discussion, OK?


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Relying on the Federailist Papers to discern original intent is just as foolish as believing in original intent in the first place.

The FP usually offers more than one side of an argument. If anything, the FPs make it clear that there was no original intent. Was their original intent to end slavery at some point, or continue it forever? Was the right to keep and bear arms limited to that which would provide a well organized militia, or is the right a personal one that should be unfettered?

For another, the FP makes clear the Framers utter revulsion at the idea of a standing army. Are the original intent wingnuts really prepared to completely dissolve our military to conform to their absurd concept of original intent?


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



IMO, you need to re-evaluate your hallucinations because I never said anything about that


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalist said:
> ...



Another wingnut moron here to prove wingnuts don't understand the Constitution

The BOR recognizes some rights (ex the 1st)  that only apply to citizens and other rights (ex Due Process) it recognizes in all "PERSONS" regardless of citizenship.


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

konradv said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



"the people" is a reference to US citizens. "person" refers to anyone regardless of citizenship


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Even the 2nd amendment isn't that obvious.  Why in that amendment does it refer to "the people" as having the right with in the 4th it's "a person"?   Sounds like the 2nd is a "collective right", while the 4th is a "personal right".   That and the "militia" clause, make even the second unclear.
> ...



Ummm, the 2nd says nothing about personal defense.

And the FPs make it clear that the Framers idea of the 2nd providing a defense against the central govt only worked in the absence of a standing army. The idea that the 2nd can serve that purpose against a professional army is laughable


----------



## JiggsCasey (Nov 23, 2010)

The situational ethics of the modern con man:

Jan. 2001 - Jan. 2009: 

"Shut up and be grateful we keep you safe at night. We'll torture whoever we want, and tap your phones and email too! Our trickle down economics will allow you pay your mortgage, as long as you work two jobs and never join a union. Don't ask about our privatized gains and socialized loss, it's for your own good. The corporation rules!"

After Jan. 2009:

"Impeach! Impeach! The Kenyan socialist is trying to bankrupt America!"

Riiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



U.S. citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights. Now show me in the bill of rights where it gives other people from other country's such rights?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2010)

jiggscasey said:


> the situational ethics of the modern con man:
> 
> Jan. 2001 - jan. 2009:
> 
> ...




then if obama is not intentionally fucking the economy up he's the stuipest son of a bitch america has elected.


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



First, you showed us you don't understand the constitution. Now, you've shown us you don't understand English

In the post you quoted, I gave an example of rights that non-citizens have under the constitution. Try re-reading it. Maybe moving your lips while you read will help.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Do you know what the bill of rights are part of? I know you do not understand it. But try to explian it.


----------



## Dante (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> then if obama is not intentionally fucking the economy up he's the stuipest son of a bitch america has elected.



whatever...


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Idiot!!! I already posted about where the BOR recognizes the rights of non-citizens.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



and your an idiot if you think they do.


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Only wingnuts are stupid enough to think the BoR only applies to citizens.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




Show me where it mentions anything about other country's?

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I have already posted an example of the BoR recognizing a right that belongs to ALL "persons", regardless of citizenship. If you didn't understand the answer the first time, giving it a 2nd time is a waste of time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



You've posted nothing.
Since you think everybody has rights that are protected by the bill of rights I have a question.
Do they have the right to keep and bear arm protected by the second Amendment?
Do they have the right to vote? Do they have a right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


----------



## sangha (Nov 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I posted an example of a right that applies to everyone, regardless of citizenship

WRT your questions, those rights are reserved to "the people". IOW, they apply only to citizens

My turn to ask a question "Why does the Constitution speak of _The right of the people_ in some amendments, while others refer to "any person" or "no person"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Give the amendment that you are talking about.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 24, 2010)

I like the 29th Amendment better....wher Congress is prohibited from doing anything stupid


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Now the wingnut wants me to read the constitution to him 

Why don't you just admit you don't know the answer to the question?


----------



## Dante (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...





It's w_hoop-dee-doo_ time in Right Wing World.

gawd, some of these right wing dipshits are --_- uhm --- err --- ahhh _--- dipshits.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Dante said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He's acting like reading the BoR is a sysiphean task. For a wingnut, I guess it is.


----------



## Dante (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



in all fairness bigred is mentally challenged. Expecting him to grasp basic concepts is just unfair.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Simple thing for you to do is post the amendmen you are talking about. This way there will not be any confussion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

Dante said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



dante time to take your meds.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It's just as simple for you to read the constitution, though not too simple for you to fuck it up.

And we know this because, and I repeat

I HAVE ALREADY POSTED AN EXAMPLE OF A RIGHT THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP


----------



## Dante (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

Dante said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



denial? or  either way you are


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Dude!! You keep asking me to post something I already posted, and every time I tell you that I already posted. But you just keep asking. You claim posting the amendment will clear up your confusion, but I posted it, and you're still confused


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Are you speaking for dante? Or are you and dante one in the same since you replied to a comment I made to him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



sangha now I am addressiung you


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Someone mentioned meds, so I automatically thought of you


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Dude, I already posted a reference to the amendment and you're still confused. Explain to me why posting it again will clear up your confusion?

And why do you need the constitution quoted to you in order to understand the phrases "the rights of the people" and "any person" and "no person"? Tell me which words you don't understand, and I'll post a link to dictionary.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I do not need them nor do I take them. Still waiting what amendment are you talking about? Either they have all rights protected or they have none you cannot split  rights that way. Next you will be saying American have some rights and next you will say they have none.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What amendment?


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



This wingnut is so dizzy he can't remember the question!!!

And it was HIS question!


----------



## Dante (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What amendment?



huh?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


you're dragging your feet wing nut.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I see you're still confused


----------



## Dante (Nov 25, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



In all fairness, bigred is not confused --- he's mildly enchanted. 







bigred braves the scary world 'out there'


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I do not live in your fantsy world.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 25, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I'm not going back through every post, you made the claim it's up to you to provide the source. Stop dragging your feet son.


----------



## sangha (Nov 25, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I made the claim. I provided the source.

You're just too stupid to realize it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 25, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



OK I'm stupid show the amendment.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Already posted the amendment. You'd know that if you knew how to read.

Or you could admit that you were wrong


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Wow what a concept I just read what you posted.

Now what amendment are you using?


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The one I posted


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I td you I am not going through every post you made to find what amdnemt you are talking about. So you either show it or your're blowing out your ass.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I showed it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I didn't see it.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'll add that to the list of Things Wingnuts Didn't See


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



and I'll add lying to your wing nut ass.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You're always lying to someone. No reason to leave my ass out of it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Why should anyone believe you're lying wingnut ass?


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



All they have to do is read the thread and see that I posted the amendment. That's not an impossible task. 

Though it is for you


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


i didnt see you post it
i saw you post some vague references to an amendment, but not the exact amendment


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What "vague references" did I post?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


what you are now claiming was "the amendment"


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


 
Why would you amend the Constitution to include _non citizens_ as the Constitution is written for Citizens, and the persuit of self-governance?

That was your first mistake and typical of a Statist...just as judges using International Law to decide cases.

Just continue to wipe your ass with the document.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What did I claim was "the amendment"?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


and here you go into your circular argument
this is why so many see you as a fucking moron


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Translation: "I forgot what we are talking about"


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


wrong again, moron


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Notice how the wingnut can't tell us what we are talking about

Proof that he forgot!


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


no, it YOU that cant
wingnut


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


 
Quite the antagonist, aren't you? Why didn't you just answer the question instead of being a giant asswipe?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


because he doesnt remember what he posted


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I posted an amendment that protects a right that everyone has, not just citizens.

I bet you can't remember which right I posted about


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Time to ignore this asshole folks.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


naw, too much fun to ridicule him while he claims "winnaz on da interwebs" status


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


   okay...


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


^^^ and this is an example of about all he posted
he never actually posted an amendment, or even a link to one


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


 
I know it, You know it, bigreb knows it...as does _shanghaied..._he/she/it is being a horse's backside with no substance other than verbal feces.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Sure I did. I posted the amendment.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


link to your post
i didnt see you post either the amendment or a link to it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Here we go again


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He won't do it because he has nothing


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What post number was it?


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What was the post # of the post where you originally asked for an example?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


he's back to his circle jerk again


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I don't know. give a post number junior or shut the fuck up.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You first


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



If you keep tap dancing that shows you have nothing. When someone ask me to produce something I post I do it. The only time I see people act like you is when they are hiding something.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I already posted it. You're just too dumb and lazy to read the thread.

And you lie when you say you post proof. We're still waiting for you to post where the Constitution says it only protects the rights of citizens

When are you going to do that?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


i read the thread, and i just went back through several pages where this started, and not once did i see you make a direct quote of any amendment or post a link to one


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What part of the U.S. Constitution gives rights to non U.S. citizens? You haven't proven that non U.S. Citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights, how can I disprove something that you haven't proven?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


art 4, 5, and 14 all speak of persons in one form or another
but not to non-citizens specifically
and it would be assumed that the "persons" would be at least legal residents


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...





> it would be assumed that the "persons" would be at least legal residents



No asumption thats exactly what it means.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



WHen are you going to back up your bogus claim that the Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens?

You keep asking about the rights of non-citizens, and another poster just mentioned one (about trials), and yet YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO REALIZE IT

You're so dumb, you are STILL ASKING for something you just received. Meanwhile, you STILL haven't posted anything to support your wingnut delusions about the constitution

So of course you didn't find my post. You can't even find a post that answers your question even though it right on this very page


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Not entirely true

Specifically, there is nothing "assumed" about the meaning of the word "persons". That word has been defined for centuries by Common Law, which is much a part of our legal framework as the Constitution is

PS - "persons" refer to any human that has been born. It applies to non-legal residents as fully as it applies to legal residents. That's why illegal immigrants have due process rights, even though they're not here legally


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, "persons" is a legal term which means "any human that has been born"


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

> The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.
> 
> And the right opposed the 13th, 19th, 24th and the 26th
> 
> They support making English the official language, and prohibiting gay marriage, both of which restricts peoples' rights


 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=2968148

And still _shanghaied_ has yet to prove the assertion


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


first off, I never made that claim
and you have shown in SEVERAL threads here, that you are clearly the dumb one


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


 
However shithead...the Constitution is written for Citizens and a guide to self governance...how can you include non-citizens into the mix?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


since at the time immigration laws were very lax, or non-existent, one can assume they wouldnt have thought of someone being here illegally.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> > The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.
> >
> > And the right opposed the 13th, 19th, 24th and the 26th
> >
> ...



It seems that the newest wingnut ploy is to ignore evidence, and then claim no evidence has been posted.

Notice how the Tbagger won't identify any error in my post


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No, the constitution was not written for citizens is not a guide to self-governance.

And I didn't include non-citizens into the mix . The constitution protects the rights of non-citizens


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > > The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.
> ...


 
If you mean LAW and precident? Then guess what idiot? The Law was never challanged nor was the precident. Still doesn't make it correct.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, theyd have nothing to say

The law defined the word "persons" hundreds of years before the US had an immigration policy


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
AMENDMENT XIV 
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Really you're swiming in the river of denial and have become delusional.


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > > The 17th. The right wants to take away they peoples' right to directly elect senators.
> ...


 
Read on fuckstick. I did just that. Are you fucking blind or intellectually challanged?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


"hundreds"
now who is making shit up
LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


yes, no doubt he is taking the orange and leaving off the green


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



No, you moron, I don't mean LAW and precedent?

You claim I haven't backed up my claim when challenged, but you haven't posted any challenge for me to respond to.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



No, that is not the basis of my argument.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Once again, the wingnut has no evidence to post, and no argument to make.

Just childish personal attacks. This wingnut has been rendered incapable of supporting his claims


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Still waiting on that amendment you used if the 14th is not the bvasis of your argument.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I see this wingnut has no idea what Common Law is

Here comes another of those lectures you don't need (but you do)

Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The term "common law" originally derives from after the Norman Conquest. The "common law" was the law that emerged as "common" throughout the realm, as the king's judges imposed a unified common law throughout England. The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those that existed historically in societies where precedent and custom played a role in the legal process, including Germanic law.[29]



I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Norman Conquest occurred at least  several centuries ago.


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


 

Nevermind that when it was written they were speaking to citizens...


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


 
Hopeless. You haven't. That's just it. Only a claim with no link to anything. And here we are back to square one. Press on. I haven't got time for shitheads that don't know history...and that means you.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I didn't pay any attention to what colors he used in quoting the Constitution because he didn't ask about that He asked *Is this the basis of your argument? the 14th was created for blacks who were slaves to make sure their rights as citizens were protected.
*

The 14th Amend is not the basis of my argument. The Constitution. The part that was colored by does, however, prove that I'm right

Right there it says the constitution protects the rights of non-citizens.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



My argument is not based on any one amendment. It's based on the Constitution, which protects the rights of non-citizens in many places.

Since you just posted it, you could start with Art I Sec 1


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



The Constitution and the bill of rights are two seperate items The bill of rights protects the right of American citizens. The Constitution tell's the government what it can and cannot not do.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


HE didnt use the colors
I did


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Umm, the BoR is a part of the Constitution; it is not a seperate item, the BoR protects the rights of non-citizens and the constitution does more than tell the govt what it can and can't do.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



My bad.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


One more time The bill of rights protects rights.
The Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


yes the BoR is a part of the constitution, the first 10 amendments in fact


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


they are BOTH part of the constitution


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

divecon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


they are together but both have a differant purpose. Which seperates the two.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



One more time. The BoR protects the rights of non-citizens
The Bor is not seperate from the constitution
The constitution does more than just tell the govt what it can and cannot do


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Tell that to bigrebnc. He seems to think they are "two seperate items"

I have no idea why


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So they are "two seperate items" and "together"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...





> One more time. The BoR protects the rights of non-citizens



Which amendment?


> The constitution does more than just tell the govt what it can and cannot do



Well show me what other things are hidden in the constitution? What other purpose does it have other than telling what the governmewnt can and cannot do?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



one protects rights and the other tells the government what it can and can't do. If yoiu have any new information provide it with your source.


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 
And cite it. Shanghaid doesn't know anything other than what it was taught in a gubmint school by a union member.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The amendment has been posted, by more than one poster.

ANd if you can read, there is nothing hidden in the constitution. In addition to saying what the govt can and can't do, it also includes rules about how to change the constitution.


----------



## roomy (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



But you are a **** so what do you know?


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You said *"The Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do"* and that *"both have a differant purpose"*

So what is the purpose of the BoR? Is the purpose of the BoR different than the Constitution? You say they have different purposes, but you haven't said what the purpose of the BoR is

(I wonder if the wingnut realizes how he just contradicted himself? If he says they have the same purpose, then he proves himself wrong for saying they are "seperate". If he says the BoR has a purpose other than telling govt what it can and can't do, then he proves I was right when I said the constitution does more than that)


----------



## The T (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


 
Yes...and why has the Constitution not been amended to reflect? End-Run-around LAW is the way to do it...right?


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Here's my citation, as requested

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

The T said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



In wingnut world, constitutional amendments do not "amend to reflect" whatever that means 

They think a constitutional amendment is a "End-Run-around LAW"


----------

