Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2014, 02:51 PM
 
13,954 posts, read 5,623,969 times
Reputation: 8613

Advertisements

Both parties, both sides of the normal ideological aisle, and most Americans ignore the Constitution as is convenient at any particular moment. To say either the libs or cons are alone in their war against it is pure partisan ignorance. There are more examples than can be counted of this very thing, and many of them codified into law and upheld by the SCOTUS. Seriously, the ink on that document wasn't dry before all three branches of government began fighting against its limitations. Marbury v Madison began weakening the Constitution less than 12 years after it was fully ratified.

So seriously, stop it with "conservatives this" or "liberals that" where trashing the US Constitution is concerned. Neither party has ever given a damn about that document unless they could use it's wording to bludgeon the other party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2014, 02:54 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,451,300 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
They might not embrace it outright but bear in mind they are the ones voting for the kind of presidents who put people like Alito on the court.
It was 6-3. That means a couple of libs voted for it too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,317 posts, read 4,205,955 times
Reputation: 2822
Didn't Eric Holder just tell Attorney Generals of States, NOT to fulfill their constitutional duty of enforcing laws passed by their State's Legislatures?

If Libs are friends of the Constitution, then why aren't they condemning Holder for such a blatant violation of our Constitutional principles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
All you have to do is discredit those links....and that does not include saying....Oh look "fox."
As a matter of fact, yes. When it comes from a news source, that claims that global warming is a hoax, despite the fact that almost every scientist in the world disagrees with that contention. I will discredit Fox News links, and laugh at you for falling for them.

Fox News' Credibility At 'Record Low': PPP Poll
The Huffington Post | By Rebecca Shapiro
Posted: 02/06/2013 3:35 pm EST | Updated: 02/06/2013 5:56 pm EST


Fox News' Credibility At 'Record Low': PPP Poll
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIVERSMVP14 View Post
name specific times.
Times? Starting with when he was first appointed, and ending with this idiotic ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by bl4ke360 View Post
Then why does the Obama regime support the NSA and the loss of everyone's fourth amendment rights as a result?
Oh yes, just like the economy. Blame the guy who inherited the mess, instead of the people who created it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:17 PM
 
307 posts, read 405,379 times
Reputation: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Times? Starting with when he was first appointed, and ending with this idiotic ruling.
nope need examples.and we already corrected you on this recent ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:32 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,677,147 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000 View Post
I'm no Republican, but I've been accused of being Conservative before, despite my Liberals beliefs. Despite sharing our disgust of the GOP hypocrisy, I don't envision R's embracing this infringement & think you've become no better than they are with this dogsh*t, sick way of rationalizing your quasi-facist views on the 2nd Amendment.

In this case the Police directly asked this guy's permission to enter his home without a warrant while he was in jail. He said "No". Should have been end of story. Then the police go back to his house, knock on the door and convince the spouse to say "yes"? That's not my idea of what should be legal in the United States of America. It just further infringes on our rights incrementally at a time when we need to guard against all infringements. It also opens the door to police simply arresting the person who refuses more strongly and then coercing the weaker voice. If the case is so strong, get a warrant like we've done forever. Easy.
Agreed. If I refuse to consent the police should not then go allowed to go behind my back and ask the wife. Not sure what all the particulars were to this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:34 PM
 
307 posts, read 405,379 times
Reputation: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Oh yes, just like the economy. Blame the guy who inherited the mess, instead of the people who created it.
if you continue the mess you are Part of the problem. Obama could have limited NSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,029,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
You are WRONG in your assertion.

Many of them came HERE so they could practice THEIR religion AS THEY wished, which in most cases was some form of Christianity.
No you are wrong. Keep trying but you can't rewrite history. Nothing about Christianity was ever mentioned by any of the founding fathers, except to say that the United States Government was in no way affiliated with Christianity.

Article 11. of Treaty of Tripoli Authored by Joel Barlow in 1796, and unanimously approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797. Unanimously means 100% agreed with it.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Case closed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:58 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top