WTF, This is what we believe?

[MaggieMae]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


Doesn't say a word about choosing the amendments. I will defend all of them.

Any legal enactment amending an original enactment is deemed to be included in its entirety and made a part of the original. The Army Field Manual has been amended several times, but it is still called "The Army Field Manual," period.

 

[ConHog]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


Doesn't say a word about choosing the amendments. I will defend all of them.

Any legal enactment amending an original enactment is deemed to be included in its entirety and made a part of the original. The Army Field Manual has been amended several times, but it is still called "The Army Field Manual," period.

Apparently NRA doesn't believe that I feel quite confident that s/he believes s/he should be able to own a few ******* if s/he wants also.

 

[MaggieMae]

This book includes all 27 amendments to our constitution. It is therefore not outdated, nor does it not reflect todays values. And it's not some publishers job to tell me to talk to my children and warn them about the Constitution of the United States.

I'll leave that up to the liberal wingnuts to poison their childrens minds.

I would look at the disclaimer a little differently: We all know that many public school teachers are barely squeaking by (with rare exceptions) in their role of properly teaching our children (teaching as opposed to forced learning by rote). What happens when during a civics or social studies class gets to the assignment on reading x-number of clauses of The Constitution and the kids start reading what it initially said in certain parts, but the teacher doesn't explain that those were eventually changed by amendment? At that particular point, the kids don't even know what an "amendment" is, so in my mind, the teacher should explain the amendment process at the outset and why they were required (which is basically what the publisher's caveat does). All that said, the example is moot because I'm sure that particular book won't be used as a classroom textbook anyway. I'm just saying, a sharp kid would certainly question the first writing of parts of the Constitution if not provided any further explanation.

I should add that I'm insulted when someone accuses "liberals" of poisoning the minds of their children. It's that kind of rabid talk that is destroying this country--not the content of textbooks whether they present a conservative or liberal slant.

Of course Maggie, if you say so........

Thank you. You're usually one of the more rational debaters here, but occasionally you come off just like any other hack.

 

[Vast LWC]

This week's strawman talking point?

Whoever wrote that disclaimer is not a "liberal", he is an "idiot".

No intelligent liberal would have bothered with that kind of idiocy when applied to this material. And no intelligent person would allow this to be read in a classroom environment with said disclaimer included.

 

[nraforlife]

.....Pretty sure that NOWHERE in there does it say , except gays.?

Hmmmmm, and nowhere in there does it say 'except for child molesters, or serial murderers, or confidence men, or reckless deep sea oil platform operators' either soooooo I guess by your line of 'reasoning' ALL of those are 'constitutionally protected' lifestyle choices ALSO??????

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, I sit on a local school board, and have for several years, it is truly appalling how some of the textbooks we consider buying attempt to alter facts to fit their agenda.

I too sat on a school board from 1990 through 1994, and never once did we have a discussion over "altering" the words of any textbook. The only discussion regarding books was to try to budget enough money to purchase updated versions. But somehow the crowd that wanted new cheerleading uniforms and other fun stuff always won.

Ugh, don't get me started................ but I finally got my way this year , starting next year our high school textbooks will all be laptop based. I even got a company to donate the laptops, Upgraded computer files are much cheaper than actual books.

I dare say things are a little different now than in the early to mid 90s.

Yes, laptops in high school are almost as necessary today as blackboards still are. Although I can recall fighting against installing computers in our grammar school. Back then, providing computers for first through seventh graders to use I thought was overkill just because a few of the board members were already all excited about the information highway. They also cost twice what they do now. It didn't happen.

 

[MaggieMae]

.....Pretty sure that NOWHERE in there does it say , except gays.?

Hmmmmm, and nowhere in there does it say 'except for child molesters, or serial murderers, or confidence men, or reckless deep sea oil platform operators' either soooooo I guess by your line of 'reasoning' ALL of those are 'constitutionally protected' lifestyle choices ALSO??????

Actually, yes. They are all protected by legal remedies. The Constitution avoids lifestyles, per se.

 

[ConHog]

.....Pretty sure that NOWHERE in there does it say , except gays.?

Hmmmmm, and nowhere in there does it say 'except for child molesters, or serial murderers, or confidence men, or reckless deep sea oil platform operators' either soooooo I guess by your line of 'reasoning' ALL of those are 'constitutionally protected' lifestyle choices ALSO??????

Do you not understand the difference between having rights and being a constitutionally protected lifestyle? Oh PS there is no such thing as a CON protected lifestyle. All laws that afford one class more protection than another class are IMO stupid and patently UNCON but because of idiots like you who believe that a person can be stripped of their legitimate CON rights on a whim they have been put in place..............


I'd suggest a remedial civics class for you.

 

[2Parties]

All laws that afford one class more protection than another class are IMO stupid and patently UNCON but because of idiots like you who believe that a person can be stripped of their legitimate CON rights on a whim they have been put in place..............


I'd suggest a remedial civics class for you.

That's exactly what the difference is between government and the rest of us...

 

[The T]

.....Pretty sure that NOWHERE in there does it say , except gays.?

Hmmmmm, and nowhere in there does it say 'except for child molesters, or serial murderers, or confidence men, or reckless deep sea oil platform operators' either soooooo I guess by your line of 'reasoning' ALL of those are 'constitutionally protected' lifestyle choices ALSO??????

Do you not understand the difference between having rights and being a constitutionally protected lifestyle? Oh PS there is no such thing as a CON protected lifestyle. All laws that afford one class more protection than another class are IMO stupid and patently UNCON but because of idiots like you who believe that a person can be stripped of their legitimate CON rights on a whim they have been put in place..............


I'd suggest a remedial civics class for you.

Equal LIBERTY Under LAW...and that applies to the Governors...The ELECTED...It is the ELECTED that think they're ABOVE IT ALL.

This is what has the people's IRE up...You are so correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The changes to the Texas schoolbooks is more disturbing than a simple warning on the Constitution.

What are those specific changes?

Those would be the ones that actually have history instead of the progresive white wash in them.

Your comment reveals ignorance, a lack of education on this matter.

 

[nraforlife]

.............
Do you not understand the difference between having rights and being a constitutionally protected lifestyle? ........................

soooooo smart guy which are you claiming- that fag 'sex' is a 'right' or a 'constitutionally protected lifestyle'?????


which ever you pick you will need to explain why child molesters, or serial murderers, or confidence men, or reckless deep sea oil platform operators' DON'T have the SAME 'right' or a 'constitutionally protected lifestyle' by your warped line of 'reasoning'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

.............
Do you not understand the difference between having rights and being a constitutionally protected lifestyle? ........................

soooooo smart guy which are you claiming- that fag 'sex' is a 'right' or a 'constitutionally protected lifestyle'?????


which ever you pick you will need to explain why child molesters, or serial murderers, or confidence men, or reckless deep sea oil platform operators' DON'T have the SAME 'right' or a 'constitutionally protected lifestyle' by your warped line of 'reasoning'.

you are the one who is warped here, nraforlife. you don't want sex with a gay, then I have a hint for you: don't have sex with a gay. in private life, adults are generally protected in their affairs, and homosexuality is one of those protections.

don't like it?

move to ghana.

 

[nraforlife]

................... in private life, adults are generally protected in their affairs, and homosexuality is one of those protections.

....................

Hmmmmm for the first 200 years of the Constitution faggotry was routinely punished by Law. It still would be in most States except for usurpations by fed courts. Clearly the Founders intended no protections for queers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

................... in private life, adults are generally protected in their affairs, and homosexuality is one of those protections.

....................

Hmmmmm for the first 200 years of the Constitution faggotry was routinely punished by Law. It still would be in most States except for usurpations by fed courts. Clearly the Founders intended no protections for queers.

The Founders, particularly Jefferson and Madison, would have had your sanctioned by the state for your hatred, nraforlife. They would have told the baliff, "to turn his sorry ass out into the street."

 

[FA_Q2]

................... in private life, adults are generally protected in their affairs, and homosexuality is one of those protections.

....................

Hmmmmm for the first 200 years of the Constitution faggotry was routinely punished by Law. It still would be in most States except for usurpations by fed courts. Clearly the Founders intended no protections for queers.

And the same could be said for women - the founders had no plans for women to ever be equal. The founders were not always correct and they did not plan for everything. The constitution itself and the founders never said anything about gays and the issue has not arisen in the last 200 years. You're morality is not required to be forced onto others, there is no actual reason to deny gay's the same privileges straight couples enjoy because it in no way encroaches upon your rights. Where is the validity in denying such a simple civil privilege?

 

[beowolfe]

I got an email about this today and thought I would easily disprove it. I have friends who send me stuff and ask if it's for real. People this is for real. Here is a disclaimer copied from a book being sold on Amazon:

"2008 Wilder Publications

This book is a product of it's time and does not reflect the same values
as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with
their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and
interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before
allowing them to read this classic work."

The name of the book?

The Constitution
The Declaration of Independence and
The Articles of Confederation

Now I understand that yes we have changed the way we think about many things, but this is taught in History classes. Anyone who wants to warn my kids about the Constitution of the United States won't see any dollars from my wallet.

Oh and here is the page on Amazon:

Amazon.com: The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation (9781604592689): Books

Read it for yourself. I still can't believe it.

Who said anything about 'warning' kids????

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interpretations concerning the documents have changed over the centuries, most of it for the good. Women and blacks and minorities and older teenagers can vote, for one thing, and as the white male vote diminishes (it is only 1/3rd now), the old traditional culture's influence in elections and politics withers away. Not a bad thing all in all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

................... in private life, adults are generally protected in their affairs, and homosexuality is one of those protections.

....................

Hmmmmm for the first 200 years of the Constitution faggotry was routinely punished by Law. It still would be in most States except for usurpations by fed courts. Clearly the Founders intended no protections for queers.

Hey nranolife, apparently you're scared of a black president, because anything that isn't white, Christian, straight and conservative and in power makes you nervous.

By the way, ever heard of a thing called the Hellfire Club?

The Hellfire Club was a name for several exclusive clubs for high society rakes established in Britain and Ireland in the 18th century, and was more formally or cautiously known as the "Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe".[1] These clubs were rumoured to be the meeting places of "persons of quality"[2] who wished to take part in immoral acts, and the members were often very involved in politics. Neither the activities nor membership of the club are easy to ascertain.[3][4]

The very first Hellfire Club was founded in London in 1719, by Philip, Duke of Wharton and a handful of other high society friends.[5] The most infamous club associated with the name was established in England by Sir Francis Dashwood,[6] and met irregularly from around 1749 to around 1760, and possibly up until 1766.[7] Other clubs using the name "Hellfire Club" were set up throughout the 18th century. Most of these clubs were set up in Ireland after Wharton's were dispelled.[8]

The club motto was Fais ce que tu voudras (Do what thou wilt), a philosophy of life associated with François Rabelais' fictional abbey at Thélème[7][9] and later used by Aleister Crowley.

Most of the Founding Fathers were members.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

And the same could be said for women - the founders had no plans for women to ever be equal. The founders were not always correct and they did not plan for everything.

They were amazing men, but they were still men. Many of the Founders ideas are spot on, but even among themselves they couldn't always agree on things.

One example of a spectacular shortcoming of the Founders is the apportionment question, namely determining how many Representatives to apportion out to each states. The Constitution doesn't give a method, and the methods the Founders tried to use often resulted in hilarious situations.

I have a very limited amount of patience for folks that want to elevate the Founders to God status, as many in here seem to want to do. I definitely think they had the right ideas when founding this nation, but they were certainly not without faults.