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.
a prayer is not a state religion. and I wil stand by my belief liberals are hateful ofour rights.
You can stand by your beliefs all you want, and you can believe what you want, but your beliefs are not the Constitution. The Constitution isn't this thing where you can just make up your own interpretations and have them be accepted or given any value whatsoever.
you can stand by your beliefs all you want, and you can believe what you want, but your beliefs are not the constitution. The constitution isn't this thing where you can just make up your own interpretations and have them be accepted or given any value whatsoever.
its the Democrats who are against the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
BS I have never met a Democrat who was against the First Amendment. The Second Amendment, hell yeah. It's a stupid, obsolete amendment that should be repealed. It's pointless, and as I said I would vote to get rid of it for no other reason then to screw the hell out of you conservatives, who have been trashing all the rest of our Constitutional rights for the last 35 years.
You people have wrecked our freedoms, the same way you wrecked our economy, with your fail policies.
As usual liberals support the Constitution, while Conservatives vote to use it as toilet paper
This is why I have no problem supporting a repeal of the Second Amendment. People who have so little regard for the Constitution don't deserve to have Second Amendment rights.
Supreme Court Makes Big Decision On When Cops Can Enter Your Home
| by MARK SHERMAN
Posted: 02/25/2014 12:12 pm EST Updated: 02/25/2014 3:59 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.
The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.
True conservatives, not to be confused with go-along-to-get-along RINOs, have been consistent in opposing all forms of government tyranny.
It is liberalism that has created the judicial monarchy that is the Supreme Court.
It is liberals who equate Supreme Court rulings with the Constitution itself.
As for the unrelated issue of the Second Amendment, while I applaud someone on the left actually talking about taking the proper action to change the Constitution through the amendment process rather than trying to force something down our throats via court rulings, why not start with an amendment to rein in a Supreme Court that interprets the meaning and effect out of the protections proved in our Constitution?
BS I have never met a Democrat who was against the First Amendment. The Second Amendment, hell yeah. It's a stupid, obsolete amendment that should be repealed. It's pointless, and as I said I would vote to get rid of it for no other reason then to screw the hell out of you conservatives, who have been trashing all the rest of our Constitutional rights for the last 35 years.
You people have wrecked our freedoms, the same way you wrecked our economy, with your fail policies.
True conservatives, not to be confused with go-along-to-get-along RINOs, have been consistent in opposing all forms of government tyranny.
It is liberalism that has created the judicial monarchy that is the Supreme Court.
It is liberals who equate Supreme Court rulings with the Constitution itself.
As for the unrelated issue of the Second Amendment, while I applaud someone on the left actually talking about taking the proper action to change the Constitution through the amendment process rather than trying to force something down our throats via court rulings, why not start with an amendment to rein in a Supreme Court that interprets the meaning and effect out of the protections proved in our Constitution?
The Supreme Court did a fine job of preserving the Constitution for the first 200 years of this country. Until the rightwing nut jobs like Clarence Thomasas took it over.
The Supreme Court did a fine job of preserving the Constitution for the first 200 years of this country. Until the rightwing nut jobs like Clarence Uncle Thomas took it over.
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.
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.
