- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
That's not opinion.
:rofl and i thought you didn't have a sense of humor.
I don't know of any hard stats on the subject, and at any rate the "protection" or "stripping" of civil rights is, unfortunately, a subjective evaluation. There is no metric I'm aware of that would allow you to make a statement like, "Well, over the last 10 years the Republicans decreased our freedoms 2.4%, but those lousy Democrats have decreased them 50%!"
So, yeah, it's opinion and not fact.
You know that there isn't, or otherwise you would've presented it.
Feel free to give up the posturing any time now, seeing as how it is completely without any factual basis whatsoever.
People are whining about this? If a section was negated by a later amendment, why does it matter if that section is not read aloud? It would certainly same some time, and allow them to get down to the business at hand.
Who passed Jim Crow laws?
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.
They should have to take a test on it. More than half would fail miserably.
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.
Because the goal of reading it aloud was to get back to th eroots. Editting out the less than stellar parts of our history is ignoring a portion of our legislative roots.
Because the goal of reading it aloud was to get back to th eroots. Editting out the less than stellar parts of our history is ignoring a portion of our legislative roots.
Why read parts of the Constitution that are no longer legal parts of the Constitution?
I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.
I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.
The chamber's Republican leaders... had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots.
The 3/5ths compromise isn't a portion of our history that embarrasses you? Okay, then!
I get that it's not Constitutional. It's quite obviously not Constitutional. It is, however, a portion of the Constitution and if the point is to remind everybody of what the Constitution says so that we can work our way back to a Constitutional government we shouldn't leave stuff like this out.
I'm not a liberal. I've said so many times. That makes you a liar.
It is quacks like a duck,acts like a duck then perhaps it is a duck.
I do not, in fact like to ignore the intentions of our forefathers. Hypocrisy aside they had a number of good ideas I'm a really big fan of.
I've got a pretty good understanding of how the Constitution works and why it works that way, I just think if they're going to do a song and dance about getting back to the basics they shouldn't ignore portions of our Constitutional history that they don't like.
So you think it was okay for slave owning states to use their slaves to get more representation? The South was lucky they even got that. Seeing how they didn't consider their slaves people enough to deserve legal protection they shouldn't have been able to use their slaves to get any extra representation.
If it is not valid then what is the point of reading it? Was the 13th amendment repealed?
This is just a piss poor attempt of yours to mock and bash republicans and nothing more. Its like calling the chief of police a hypocrite for not enforcing a no spitting on the sidewalk law that was repealed.
I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.
The Dems haven't passed any gun bans, nor attempted to pass other, more oppresive gun bans?
Al Sharpton isn't trying to get the FCC to ban Rush Limbaugh?
That's just all nasty rumors, created to smear Democrats?
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.
They should have to take a test on it. More than half would fail miserably.
I don't see a down side?
Tim-
Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus are going to study it and one of Supreme Court Justices is going to give classes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?