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.
^ More information about the U.S. congress' First amendment
What do you mean by "let the public people vote for/against it?" That isn't how it works.
EXP: Ask people in Cali how voting for or against something has worked out. Funny how propositions to raise taxes are never struck down (by judges protecting their assets) like the social propositions that pass in landslides only to be struck down by a single judge.
Freedoms taken away are usually lost for good, just as higher taxes usually never stop.
Many countries across the world do not have any amendments (laws) against various things and most people seems to be fine with that.
Perhaps maybe someone is against freedom of speech since it may insult somebody?
Maybe people want to vote for church & state?
Etc.
Not a good idea. If this came to pass, there would be some states where Christianity would be the state religion and the Bible enforced as law according to somebody's interpretation, and there would be other states where Christianity would be banned and people jailed just for believing.
The First Amendment is what protects our liberties in this country. Without it, we might as well just break up into individual nations.
As an aside, the top marginal tax rate peaked at 92% in 1952-3.
Rates are just one factor of a multiplication equation, while you need another factor (what that rate may be specifically applied to) in order to achieve a product.
In Australia a lot of people are actually happy that Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. You actually hear a lot of people virtually brag about that.
Perhaps maybe someone is against freedom of speech since it may insult somebody?
Maybe people want to vote for church & state?
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Yet christians can insult anyone they please? Christians need to keep their religion to themselves and stop trying to force everyone else to believe like they do, it would just make the US a misirable and horrible place to live. We have the freedom to believe in what ever we want, be it Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, God or nothing at all, we also have the freedom to say NO, I refuse to give up those freedoms just so christians can rule everyone. Keep your religion to your self and your church. Say your prayers, sing in your choir, but do not try to force all of us to get behind you or expect us to. The USA was founded on freedom, not oppression.
Nunnor likes to start totally ridiculous topics like banning the 1st amendment, making atheism illegal, making christianity a state religion. And then everybody argues with him/her/it! What's the point?
^ More information about the U.S. congress' First amendment
Yes.
But just for you.
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.
Should the First Amendment be abolished?
