Constitution of the United States

[Superman4ever]

Back on Topic, I don't believe that DC should be intergrated into any other State, as the original reason behind not doing so would give what ever state too much political power.

Agreed.

 

[wiegeabo]

Here is the first of my thoughts on Each Amendment

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thoughts:
This gives you the right to say anything you damn want to and allows you to meet other people in groups to say it as well. For instance, the Nazi Party of the United States...(we wont go into what I think about them *cough-crackpots-cough*)

They have EVERY right to sit have a meeting in public and voice their opinions.

Now, to me this means, say what you want, as long as your free speech does not impact me...there is obviously a very thin line on where your rights stop and mine start.

Religion, I think this means one simple thing. The Federal Government cant START or publically support one religion, thus putting other religions as a minority.

This says nothing about religion being core to our personal beliefs.

Your Comments?

I believe in the phrase "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." If I get to say whatever I want, so does everyone else. As long as they don't try to force their ideas on someone, because that person also has the to right say/think what they want.


I agree that the government can't support any religion. Therefore it must either support all of them (not feasible, and probably conflicting) or none of them (giving us the freedom and right to believe whatever we want).


I support freedom of the press. It's our first line of defense against corruption and abuse. But I think there is far too much speculation and editorializing being confused for actual reporting of the facts. I also think in the matter of court cases, we should take a cue from Britain. Other than the person being charged, the charges against them, and when the trial takes place, the press cannot report on a trial until it is completed. I agree with this because all the press a case gets now unduly influences juries. This violates the defendant's fifth amendment rights. By reporting the facts of the case after the trial, this violation (and tons of speculation) is avoided, and the first amendment is still preserved.

 

[Dormammu]

I brought up the whole ignorant comment (HIS quotes) because he admonished the removal of the state's power to elect it's own official representation (via Amendment 17), its senators, and giving that power to the "power grabbing...ignorant masses", yet advocates the rights of those same ignorant masses' rights to bare arms.

If they can't chose for themselves who can represent their state, then they surely cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of bearing arms.

Matt has an itchy trigger finger and has ever since he became a mod. Upon becoming a mod, he would constantly threaten suspensions and banishment for the silliest of things (and no, I am not talking about me). Now...ignorant means uninformed, unaware. Yes, voters by large are uninformed. The legislative branch, in a move which would give them more power and increase the size of federal government, voted on and ratified the 17th amendment. Unfortunately, it passed. This allows them to pander to the ignorant masses, ie, the uninformed and apathetic masses. So I don't see how you can equate one being uninformed in public discourse with one being unable to defend one's self. There is no knowledge or requirement of knowledge about political issues and pending legislation to exercise your constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms, to exercise the right to defend your life. The error you are making is equating "ignorant" with "stupid." Now, when I said you didn't know the definition of ignorant, that was true. You suggested that it meant "stupid." It does not, and that is not how I use the word. If I had meant stupid, I would have said stupid. So for you or Matt or anyone else to say that I called anyone stupid or implied they are stupid is incorrect.

Also, I didn't say the ignorant masses were power grabbing, I said the legislators were. The people are represented by their REPRESENTATIVES, not by their Senators. That is how our system was set up. It was usurped by the power grabbers. Give the voice of the states back to the states.

Since I won't be long here, I won't have the opportunity to respond to every post, but I would challenge jman to point out in the Constitution where we have the right to vote. It isn't in there. Nowhere. States are allowed to deny the opportunity to vote to anyone except on basis of race and gender. For starters, they should deny voting privileges of those on welfare and the illiterate. Once someone gets off welfare, then their voting privilege should be returned. Whether they vote anyway is probably debatable, and I'd be interested if such a statistic exists.

 

[Malice]

Matt has an itchy trigger finger and has ever since he became a mod. Upon becoming a mod, he would constantly threaten suspensions and banishment for the silliest of things (and no, I am not talking about me).

Interesting...you have 1 post and you already have a thought on mods, that is simply fascinating.

 

[SuBe]

I believe that also the while the First Amendment states you have a Freedom of Speech, you are not free from being offended. I can call anyone, anything I want, and say want I want, and if you are offended, it is the price to pay for the Freedom for you to do the Same. It is a hard balance, we try to be sensative people, looking out for the feelings of others, but you can't demand the Government to shut someone up, just because you disagree with what is being said. That would take away from your rights to speak.

 

[Dormammu]

Interesting...you have 1 post and you already have a thought on mods, that is simply fascinating.

If you read the rest, you'll see I'm not hiding anything.

 

[The Senator]

Matt has an itchy trigger finger and has ever since he became a mod. Upon becoming a mod, he would constantly threaten suspensions and banishment for the silliest of things (and no, I am not talking about me). Now...ignorant means uninformed, unaware. Yes, voters by large are uninformed. The legislative branch, in a move which would give them more power and increase the size of federal government, voted on and ratified the 17th amendment. Unfortunately, it passed. This allows them to pander to the ignorant masses, ie, the uninformed and apathetic masses. So I don't see how you can equate one being uninformed in public discourse with one being unable to defend one's self. There is no knowledge or requirement of knowledge about political issues and pending legislation to exercise your constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms, to exercise the right to defend your life. The error you are making is equating "ignorant" with "stupid." Now, when I said you didn't know the definition of ignorant, that was true. You suggested that it meant "stupid." It does not, and that is not how I use the word. If I had meant stupid, I would have said stupid. So for you or Matt or anyone else to say that I called anyone stupid or implied they are stupid is incorrect.

Also, I didn't say the ignorant masses were power grabbing, I said the legislators were. The people are represented by their REPRESENTATIVES, not by their Senators. That is how our system was set up. It was usurped by the power grabbers. Give the voice of the states back to the states.

Since I won't be long here, I won't have the opportunity to respond to every post, but I would challenge jman to point out in the Constitution where we have the right to vote. It isn't in there. Nowhere. States are allowed to deny the opportunity to vote to anyone except on basis of race and gender. For starters, they should deny voting privileges of those on welfare and the illiterate. Once someone gets off welfare, then their voting privilege should be returned. Whether they vote anyway is probably debatable, and I'd be interested if such a statistic exists.

The statement "everyone has the right to vote" is not explicitly written in the Constitution. But nowhere is it written in the current constitution that states have the right to deny someone the right to vote. Additionally, the 26th Amendment reads as follows:

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Which, as I interpret it, means that every citizen over the age of eighteen has the right to vote.

Also, the belief that citizens shouldn't be on welfare in order to vote is segregation in its finest form. You're targeting an entire demographic, many of whom must rely on welfare benefits (such as the disabled and the impoverished who are not impoverished because they're 'lazy' but because they are wage slaves earning minimum wage and cannot survive on $12,000 a year). Again, you overgeneralize by thinking that everyone in this country who is on welfare must be a lazy, incompetent oaf who loves mooching off the government. Again, you want to disenfranchise an entire group of people-- but the right to own a gun and hide it from security should be universally accepted.

Since you think everyone should have the right to own a gun, just you wait and see what happens when or if all these folks get their welfare benefits taken away from them. In your eyes, I hope that an armed uprising on their behalf is totally justified, especially if those who are fighting have no choice but to rely on welfare to survive.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You do know that if you're put on probation, you're not supposed to create another name and use it to post.

 

[Malice]

I believe that also the while the First Amendment states you have a Freedom of Speech, you are not free from being offended. I can call anyone, anything I want, and say want I want, and if you are offended, it is the price to pay for the Freedom for you to do the Same. It is a hard balance, we try to be sensative people, looking out for the feelings of others, but you can't demand the Government to shut someone up, just because you disagree with what is being said. That would take away from your rights to speak.

Agreed...
The hard part, is with the statement basically
Your rights stop where mine begin!

Using this as an theoretical example
Drawing the line between freedom of speech for me badmouthing SupermanBeyond and where my speech, free as it might be, impose on his rights....This is really a tough one.

 

[The Senator]

I believe that also the while the First Amendment states you have a Freedom of Speech, you are not free from being offended. I can call anyone, anything I want, and say want I want, and if you are offended, it is the price to pay for the Freedom for you to do the Same. It is a hard balance, we try to be sensative people, looking out for the feelings of others, but you can't demand the Government to shut someone up, just because you disagree with what is being said. That would take away from your rights to speak.

I disagree with this entirely.

No one has a right to call me a "***got." No one has the right to call an African American the n-word. In both these cases, the people who are being targeted by such slanderous words have every right to be offended and have every right to try to silence those who use their words for hateful purposes.

If you are using your words to invoke hate, you have trampled on your first amendment rights as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SuBe]

Agreed...
The hard part, is with the statement basically
Your rights stop where mine begin!

Using this as an theoretical example
Drawing the line between freedom of speech for me badmouthing SupermanBeyond and where my speech, free as it might be, impose on his rights....This is really a tough one.

Why would you want to badmouth me?

I kid.

My Feelings being hurt does not impose on my rights.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Personally I feel that the First Amendment gives you the right to say anything you want, but it also gives you the right to get your ass kicked if you say something incredibly ******ed like calling a gay man a ***got and an African-American the n-word.

 

[SuBe]

Personally I feel that the First Amendment gives you the right to say anything you want, but it also gives you the right to get your ass kicked if you say something incredibly ******ed like calling a gay man a ***got and an African-American the n-word.

Agreed.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Not true, we still need security, we still need firearms. We as a people reserve the right to abolish and replace our government if it were to become tyranical. How is that supposed to happen if the Evil Government has all the weapons?

Exactly. Look at Nazi Germany. They unarmed the public in the late 20's, swept in complete power in the early 30's and the rest is history. Just look at Tibet and really Tiawan.

It's beside me why people are so willing to become dependents of the state... willing to relinquish their personal responsibility. For what, I will never know.

 

[BMM]

Nevermind.

 

[Superman4ever]

Matt has an itchy trigger finger and has ever since he became a mod.

LMAO, Ban!

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Malice]

Exactly. Look at Nazi Germany. They unarmed the public in the late 20's, swept in complete power in the early 30's and the rest is history. Just look at Tibet and really Tiawan.

It's beside me why people are so willing to become dependents of the state... willing to relinquish their personal responsibility. For what, I will never know.

it is amazing.
People get lazy and dont think forward.
One small mark on my rights here...no big deal...then again, then again
Soon those marks, in size are small individually, but they have accumulated in quantity to do massive damage.

I see one of the first issues of a totalitarian govt (as seen in history) is to get the majority of the people unarmed, unable to really fight back. Then, rights start disappearing.

I am all for security, as long as this security does not infringe on my rights.

 

[Malice]

LMAO, Ban!

Stupid is as stupid does.

BAM!

 

[The Senator]

Exactly. Look at Nazi Germany. They unarmed the public in the late 20's, swept in complete power in the early 30's and the rest is history.

Unfortunately, the Germans chose their government at the time and showed no objection to Hitler's practices. Hitler didn't overthrow the government and take complete control; his party was elected.

Just look at Tibet and really Tiawan.

Taiwan has a military. If they truly wanted to engage China, they could. The problem with both Tibet and Taiwan is that China's military could crush them in a matter of seconds. Though it goes without mentioning that the atrocities committed by China in both countries/ regions/ whatever they consider themselves are absolutely deplorable.

 

[SuBe]

it is amazing.
People get lazy and dont think forward.
One small mark on my rights here...no big deal...then again, then again
Soon those marks, in size are small individually, but they have accumulated in quantity to do massive damage.

I see one of the first issues of a totalitarian govt (as seen in history) is to get the majority of the people unarmed, unable to really fight back. Then, rights start disappearing.

I am all for security, as long as this security does not infringe on my rights.

Agreed, man I love Libertarian Ideology!

 

[wiegeabo]

Agreed, man I love Libertarian Ideology!

Libertarian FTW!

 

[Venom'sDad]

it is amazing.
People get lazy and dont think forward.
One small mark on my rights here...no big deal...then again, then again
Soon those marks, in size are small individually, but they have accumulated in quantity to do massive damage.

I see one of the first issues of a totalitarian govt (as seen in history) is to get the majority of the people unarmed, unable to really fight back. Then, rights start disappearing.

I am all for security, as long as this security does not infringe on my rights.

That is so true and very well said....

 

[Superman4ever]

BAM!

Love it!

For the record, I believe in the 2nd amendment. I think it would be an impediment on our rights, as a free society, if it were removed or for the government to tell us we are not allowed defense against them, if, G-d forbid, that time ever came.

Now, what I'd love to see is the abolishment of the military-industrial complex. That's un-American, but that's another topic.

 

[Malice]

having the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the military, so they are not even related...so I will allow you to have a problem with the military.

No badmouthing to you Super...

 

[Venom'sDad]

I see one of the first issues of a totalitarian govt (as seen in history) is to get the majority of the people unarmed, unable to really fight back. Then, rights start disappearing.

One thing I have to say about this Malice, rights is and have already disappeared in many cases in an attempt to weaken the U.S. Constitution for adopting more and more, International Law formulated and excuted through the World Court.

Look, U.S. soveriegnty is at stake... America is at war... ideologically and financially, by both internal and external forces.... and it is being done without firing a bullet. America is being disarm simultaneously while right are being eroded away, not afterwards....

....to be more clear.