Which does not in any way invalidate what I said about our constitution.
Look at the end of his post. See where is says "j/k"? That stands for "just kidding". He was making(and admitedly poor) joke. Let me know if you need any more help with those complicated internet acronyms.
You claimed that constitutions must take into account scumbag politicians and supreme court justices making rulings based on their political bias.Ours does that but elected officials and supreme court judges don't care.Which is why it it doesn't matter how well written a constitution is. If elected officials wish to subvert it then they will find a way.
Which amounts to someone saying they support the 2nd amendment before enacting all sorts of infringements on it. If she had sch a high regard for it then she wouldn't be basically dumping on it by telling other people to not go with ours but instead go with some other country's.
Who can blame her? Our constitution was crafted by an undiverse group of hateful white male christian fundamentalists for hateful white male christian fundamentalists. I'm tired of people acting like the founding fathers were somehow the wisest people who ever lived. They were white supremacists who knew nothing of the merits of diversity, multiculturalism, and government-facilitated social welfare.
Justice Ginsburg to Egyptian TV: You probably don’t want to use our Constitution as a model « Hot Air
Which amounts to someone saying they support the 2nd amendment before enacting all sorts of infringements on it. If she had sch a high regard for it then she wouldn't be basically dumping on it by telling other people to not go with ours but instead go with some other country's.
What makes our constitution inflectional is due to scumbag politicians subverting the constitution and supreme court judges making rulings based on their political bias.It has nothing to do with the constitution itself. This can happen with any constitution.
Which amounts to someone saying they support the 2nd amendment before enacting all sorts of infringements on it. If she had sch a high regard for it then she wouldn't be basically dumping on it by telling other people to not go with ours but instead go with some other country's.
Who can blame her? Our constitution was crafted by an undiverse group of hateful white male christian fundamentalists for hateful white male christian fundamentalists. I'm tired of people acting like the founding fathers were somehow the wisest people who ever lived. They were white supremacists who knew nothing of the merits of diversity, multiculturalism, and government-facilitated social welfare.
Please don't have children!Who can blame her? Our constitution was crafted by an undiverse group of hateful white male christian fundamentalists for hateful white male christian fundamentalists. I'm tired of people acting like the founding fathers were somehow the wisest people who ever lived. They were white supremacists who knew nothing of the merits of diversity, multiculturalism, and government-facilitated social welfare.
Justice Ginsburg to Egyptian TV: You probably don’t want to use our Constitution as a model « Hot Air
Because, after all, ours was written by Gods (well, rich white guys - which I guess in some people's minds is the same thing). How dare anybody suggest somebody else may have gotten some parts a little better after looking at it though 21st century eyes?
Shall not infringe means I should be allowed to own any weapon without any infringements. If you wish for the 2nd amendment to have infringements there is an amendment process for that.Only in the weird black-and-white universe you seem to live in is she "dumping on" our constitution.
Does "shall not be infringed" mean you should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? That's an "arm!"
Of course, its only patriotic to believe our Constitution is perfect for every situation that ever existed and will exist. It's not like our own Founding Fathers took things like culture, history, and the society for which they were creating this Constitution for. No their intent was to make a perfect system universal for everyone, which they succeeded perfectly with of course.
So why shouldn't Egypt do exactly what our Founding Fathers did, and look at their situation, history, and culture to make the best government for themselves and their people? Because our collective fragile American pride won't allow it that's why!
Well, yeah. But some constitutional systems are better than others. And parliamentary systems are better than presidential systems.
Seeing how you are a lib who buys into the living constitution (Liberal code for blatantly misinterpreting the constitution in order to squash some constitutional rights) b.s. you are probably totally unaware of the fact there is an amendment process in place so you can add and or repeal amendments. The amendment process is what you do if you want to get rid of or add a right.
Let me bring your attitude back into real from reality's divide and conquer conquests to own soles by selling notions of immortal soul. This is ancient thinking so the only thing they hide it behind is technological advances.Who can blame her? Our constitution was crafted by an undiverse group of hateful white male christian fundamentalists for hateful white male christian fundamentalists. I'm tired of people acting like the founding fathers were somehow the wisest people who ever lived. They were white supremacists who knew nothing of the merits of diversity, multiculturalism, and government-facilitated social welfare.
She didn't say anything about not liking the constitution.
Let me bring your attitude back into real from reality's divide and conquer conquests to own soles by selling notions of immortal soul. This is ancient thinking so the only thing they hide it behind is technological advances.
But this moment working genetically in natural balance of this moment is being here all the time, that changes everything believed by cultivated conceptual agreements never to discuss real as it functions the same way all the time.
So the entire human species as it has existed throughout history of humanity has been physically done differently than ancestry being male and female results each generation words rule what is allowed to be discussed under the rule of law that makes it criminal to criticize civil law about character rights.
The united States Constitution deals with indiviudal sole liberties of ancestors not being society's children. Every other franchise in human history is opposite that thinking. Society owns ancestral resutls each generation for the greater good of those in charge staying in power of suggestion and governance of governmental language arts.
i.e. legalized tyranny.
Telling them to use anything but the model within the original isn't speaking louder than words define by suggestion they use another country's other than the one she rules from through re-interpretation to change gender liberal into character's rights.
Please, don't insult my instincts.
Moderator's Warning: |
What makes a parliamentary system better than a presidential system?
Blasphemy!!! The U.S. Constitution is indeed perfect.[...] No constitution on earth is perfect [...]
Well, personally I fully support and defend your right to keep and bear arms that I approve of :2razz:Which amounts to someone saying they support the 2nd amendment before enacting all sorts of infringements on it. [...]
Finally, someone points out that there are, indeed, other forms of government than our 'strong executive' model (which can be prone to Machiavellian machinations). Well done, sirWell, yeah. But some constitutional systems are better than others. And parliamentary systems are better than presidential systems.
Okay, I have the right to bear arms.And you're the sort of person who thinks that there's only one possible interpretation of the constitution: YOUR interpretation of the constitution.
You have the right to bear arms. You have two, presumably, attached at your shoulders. That right has never been infringed. Or maybe you are interpreting that arms means "weapons?" And not, say, literal arms? Or specifically firearms which most certainly would not include "any weapon," like you claim?
The problem with a presidential system is the separation of powers.
In presidential systems, the main representative of the people is embodied in the legislature. But here's the problem with that.
Everybody likes their own legislator, but everybody hates the legislature as a whole.
So when that happens the legislators eventually decide to hand over more and more power over to executive authority. This is so legislators can have a reason to be re-elected to their position without actually having to make hard decisions that may mean they won't be re-elected.
And so, more and more, the executive becomes less a position of checks and balances and more of a temporary absolute dictatorship.
In a parliamentary system, however, the executive is established from the legislature, and the executive must maintain the confidence of a majority of the legislators. Therefore, the executive is just as representative as the people are.
And since the executive is formed from the legislature, the executive is just as dependent on the will of the populace as the legislature is. And so the executive is as tuned into the popular will.
Also, I think people should be able to have power of federal referendum to act as a check against the government system. So direct democracy can work as a check and balance against the representative democracy.
That, I think, would be a better method of governance.
Seeing how you are a lib who buys into the living constitution (Liberal code for blatantly misinterpreting the constitution in order to squash some constitutional rights) b.s. you are probably totally unaware of the fact there is an amendment process in place so you can add and or repeal amendments. The amendment process is what you do if you want to get rid of or add a right.
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?