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.
Actually this headline is misleading. He didn't call for eliminating any amendments. He suggested we might have been better off without some of them.
Moore is right ...many amendments have corrupted our system, for example making Senators elected by popular vote. Many amendments have chiseled away at our Republic ...the income tax, for example, is another.
Good to see you laugh at your mistake. At least you admit it. I get it, if you criticize one side people think you're all about the other side. Partisan hacks are all around us.
It's always about the policy and never the person.
lol marriage isn't a right. Why discuss rights when you don't know what one is.
Does the federal government have the authority as granted in the Constitution. If that confuses you, well that's on you.
You are the one confused. Governments do not grant rights. They restrict them. Marriage is part of the natural right of association.
More damaging than Moore's suggestion was Woodrow Wilson's belief (believed by all "progressives") that the constitution is a "living document." Roy Moore cannot eliminate any amendments on his own; but, the promotion of the "living document" theory doesn't require any debate. It only requires repetition by 'elites' ("progressives") to gain acceptance.
Let's also consider that many Democrats would quickly abandon much of the First Amendment, if they had the chance, and they are always ready to eliminate the Second Amendment.
How does Roy Moore's opponent feel about the Second Amendment? What is his stand on Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Religion? I want to know. Does he stand for the Right to Life? That's a guarantee right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Actually this headline is misleading. He didn't call for eliminating any amendments. He suggested we might have been better off without some of them.
Moore is right ...many amendments have corrupted our system, for example making Senators elected by popular vote. Many amendments have chiseled away at our Republic ...the income tax, for example, is another.
If all he is saying is US might've been better off without, for example:
the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery
the 15th Amendment which prohibited the federal & state governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on that person's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
the 19th Amendment, which extended the right to vote to women.
Why not rationally explain how US would be better off?
It's an incomplete argument, &/or circular, his argument's premises assume the truth of his conclusions, instead of supporting, in other words ~ loopy.
The fact is it is the expansion of the commerce and general welfare clauses that have led to the unconstitutional, by any rational reading of the constitution, oppressive federal government much more so than the amendments. Only the 18th which was repealed and the 22nd actually limited individual liberty. The 16th did provide the revenue needed for the expansion of the federal government.
Of course The title is a lie. At no point did Moore state he wished to repeal any specific amendment.
If all he is saying is US might've been better off without, for example:
the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery
the 15th Amendment which prohibited the federal & state governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on that person's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
the 19th Amendment, which extended the right to vote to women.
Why not rationally explain how US would be better off?
It's an incomplete argument, &/or circular, his argument's premises assume the truth of his conclusions, instead of supporting, in other words ~ loopy.
Way to go Chi! I agree with you 100 percent. The reasons behind a statement are what matters. It's all about the context of the statement.
He very well may have gone into an explanation after that statement or at another time. Reasons matter.
You are the one confused. Governments do not grant rights. They restrict them.
lol I never said government granted rights and anyone who has read my posts would know better. Try to keep up will you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Marriage is part of the natural right of association.
No it's not. Because government got involved in the marriage business, it falls under equal protection under the law. You have the right to live your life unemcumbered but you don't have a right to "government marriage". THAT is a government granted privilege.
I think the Democrat's position on the right to life is more damaging, and more dangerous, than anything Roy Moore has said, and many Democrats believe the Constitution should be abandoned, because they believe it is "outdated." Now they suddenly come to it's defense?
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.
