- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Most liberals believe that Constitution is a living document that has to adapt to changing technology and culture.
In other words, as liberals continue to work tirelessly to destroy any remnant of the founding traditional American culture, they can strip the Constitution of its principles.
In other words, as liberals continue to work tirelessly to destroy any remnant of the founding traditional American culture, they can strip the Constitution of its principles.
Actually, no. Liberals are the ones that are trying to ensure that the Constitution is NOT stripped of its principles.
That's why I thank GOD every day that McCain didn't get elected. If he had, we would have a Supreme Court right now that was soooooooo far to the right that I don't think it would ever recover in my lifetime and we would have seen the complete destruction of our Constitution.
Funny, I haven't seen amnesty for illegals, abortion, bailouts, and the kind of federal power you seek ANYWHERE in the Constitution. I must not have one of your proposed "living documents".
Funny, I haven't seen amnesty for illegals, abortion, bailouts, and the kind of federal power you seek ANYWHERE in the Constitution. I must not have one of your proposed "living documents".
If the USC is a living document, subject to the whims of current society, it is a useless document and should be trashed.
She is right, there isn't one for hetero-sexual marriage either though....
Obama could have picked far worse I am beginning to concede.
The fact is, countries and insitutions that fail to adapt to changing times, ultimately falls. It's like if we still followed the bible to the word, we'd still be stoning eachother to death before or after the superbowl. Now I don't know exactly how the constitution of the United States can be changed or applied to our current times (Unlike most people I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar) but I think throughout your history with the amendments to the constitution, who fought against those changes then? I wonder what would have really happened, had all these political websites existed when they were gonna abolish slavery. I wonder how many people in this forum would argue against emancipation (Not saying you support slavery Erod, so don't even say that, I'm just making a point about overall population opinion and the internet)
Funny....its not really the "liberals" who supported the bailouts which originated with GWB. :doh
Bush was on his own on that one.
Amnesty for illegals? Again...not really a "liberal" concept. There are many big corporate supporters that want to continue to profit off the cheap labor that are preventing any real immigration reform in this country.
It is a liberal concept designed to create a voting base in areas where liberals don't currently have one.
As far as abortion and other privacy interests, there is plenty of precedent in the Constitution to support an individuals right to be free of big government intervention into the most intimate aspects of their lives.
So long as you continue to ignore the rights of the baby.
Perhaps you cannot see things because you are so blinded by trying to justify your own idealogies.
My "ideologies" are based in simple common sense without stretching bastardized arguments into an unrecognizable form.
My point is, you can adapt to the changes of society without compromising your principles, or in this discussion, the structure of the Consitution. It isn't written in a way that doesn't adapt.
I believe in correcting our laws and ways to reflect the tenets of the Constitution. It's written perfectly, but we need to FOLLOW it.
Minimizing states rights, banning guns, limiting free speech, attacking Christianity or other religions.....that isn't adapting. That's trying to create an entirely different country. If anything, that's resorting to what we fought to free ourselves from.
My point is, you can adapt to the changes of society without compromising your principles, or in this discussion, the structure of the Consitution. It isn't written in a way that doesn't adapt.
I believe in correcting our laws and ways to reflect the tenets of the Constitution. It's written perfectly, but we need to FOLLOW it.
Minimizing states rights, banning guns, limiting free speech, attacking Christianity or other religions.....that isn't adapting. That's trying to create an entirely different country. If anything, that's resorting to what we fought to free ourselves from.
Thats right. And I'm sure whomever Bush picked you were overjoyed. :roll:
Selective memory is a wonderful thing isn't it?
Yes, he could have picked worse, but he could have picked far better.
Why can't it be modified?
Why can't it be modified?
She's only probably one of the most educated Constitutional scholars in the country...I guess you would call that "no expertise".
So I'd love to understand how she's qualfied for the position. She's never been a judge, so there's no paper trail... she's only argued cases for the government for 1 year, so there's no demonsterable past there. How is it that she's qualified to hold the highest judge ship position in the country? She's a total wild card with no past history ... and there's probably a reason non-judges weren't approved for the past 40 years. Rehnquist had a fairly long history as a lawyer and associate judge - more than 1 year in an administration before going to the SCOTUS.
I'm just not understanding her qualifications for the job - and a very important job. Unless of course the qualifications are to be an activist on the court... which she may or may not be.
Fair enough, I just wish the media and liberals would be so honest and just admit it.What's not to understand? Obama needs friends in high places to forward, and sustain his wickedly dishonest progressive agenda.
Well sure, Che could be appointed posthumously and the left would cringe and whine about how the guy is just too lively and conservative. I've noticed full blow moonbat progressives calling themselves centrists or "moderates" for years.Have you noticed...out of the box...the left is "complaining" that she's too "centrists". A new strategy I'm detetecting here...but, just the same old blatant lies, and intellectual dishonesty to insure "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.
Well, they're just like anyone else. Some you can have honest debate and discussion and others are dizzy ****ers who probably walk down the street in sandwich boards mumbling to themselves when they're not posting here. There are some very nice and good Democrats and liberals. It's the Progressives I just can't understand.Never, ever trust a leftist...they're morally bankrupt, and will look you in the eye as they lie about and obfuscate their "progressive" (communist) plans for America.
What's not to understand? Obama needs friends in high places to forward, and sustain his wickedly dishonest progressive agenda.
Have you noticed...out of the box...the left is "complaining" that she's too "centrists". A new strategy I'm detetecting here...but, just the same old blatant lies, and intellectual dishonesty to insure "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.
Never, ever trust a leftist...they're morally bankrupt, and will look you in the eye as they lie about and obfuscate their "progressive" (communist) plans for America.
Fair enough, I just wish the media and liberals would be so honest and just admit it.
Well sure, Che could be appointed posthumously and the left would cringe and whine about how the guy is just too lively and conservative. I've noticed full blow moonbat progressives calling themselves centrists or "moderates" for years.
Well, they're just like anyone else. Some you can have honest debate and discussion and others are dizzy ****ers who probably walk down the street in sandwich boards mumbling to themselves when they're not posting here. There are some very nice and good Democrats and liberals. It's the Progressives I just can't understand.
Sorry....do your own homework if you want to learn the arguments.
That's what education is about.
However, since you asked....I'll give you a clue. It has to do with putting forth an important governmental interest that justifies the differential treatment.
Its not that hard to educate yourself if you want to take a litle time to look into it.
I guess he's taking a page from the Rove/Cheney playbook. With those two, it's hard to say who's more evil and corrupt.
Ironic how you're so bothered by lies and damn lies when your boy W. lead us into a war over a lie.
$900 billion pissed away 4700 Americans dead and that doesn't bother you in the least, but the left building up a supreme court nomination by a Democratic president and you've got your panties in a bundle...
Lookiing back over the last decade, I'd say you've got it all backwards. The righties and neo-con men have been screwing you left and right. Scumbaggery of the highest order and the GOP-Fox News sheep just get down on their knees and lap it up like a bunch of dogs...
Sickening, really.
Banning of guns? Are you referring to limitations on assault weapons and grenade launchers?
C'mon Erod...lets be intellectually honest here. There is no large scale attempt to ban hunting rifles and handguns..
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?