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.
If the US Constitution offends you, you ask. How is one "offended" by the Constitution? I know of no one "offended" by it. What an odd choice of words.
Irrelevant. The changes do not reflect the views of the founding fathers and your original argument clearly indicated that their intent was what we are to follow, while ironically, you violate their views by saying any who disagree should be viewed as an enemy of the state.
You are putting words in my mouth.
Where did I say any who disagree.
I said, "If a person residing in the USA, does not respect / follow the US Constitution word for word,(not what they think it should say) they are in fact a Domestic Enemy."
You seem to be confusing action, with thought and discussion. In an effort to wrap delusion around reality.
I said, "If a person residing in the USA, does not respect / follow the US Constitution word for word,(not what they think it should say) they are in fact a Domestic Enemy."
You seem to be confusing action, with thought and discussion. In an effort to wrap delusion around reality.
Then you're saying people who actively petition or successfully pass a law you don't like. What is the relevant difference?
There is nothing inconsistent between strict construction of the Constitution and the First Amendment. Those who disagree with strict construction are free to do so -- strict construction is an ongoing dialogue in America.
And, it is perfectly possible to enact laws which interpret the Constitution consistent with a strict construction; although obviously in practice that doesn't always happen.
You don't need to GTFO if you disagree with the Constitution or the law, but if you refuse to comply you have to accept the consequences.
Such as? If you're referring to Supreme Court rulings, that is sort of their duty. They determine what does and does not violate the constitution. Should they make a decision you disagree with, take action if you wish. This does not make them enemies of the state.
Should the President offer up an executive order you feel is unconstitutional, take action. Executive orders can be overturned. Should congress pass laws you feel are unconstitutional, voice your concern, and perhaps the president or SCOTUS will listen.
But someone who disagrees with the constitution cannot be labeled an enemy of the state, rather or not it makes sense for them to disagree with it.
Which brings us to the last part of the original post, you failed to see in your haste to attack.
"To this, I wish to amend the US Constitution to be: The Supreme Court will be the ultimate Jury. Any doubt on the Constitutionality from one Judge, reserves the liberty to the people and the action deemed unconstitutional..."
You too have this unique ability to wrap delusion around reality.
How did you come to the conclusion, that thought and inquiry of discussion, was the same as your actions.
Is this the ignorance our public schools are pumping out. Critical thinking has left the room, for the sake of blind following.
Which brings us to the last part of the original post, you failed to see in your haste to attack.
"To this, I wish to amend the US Constitution to be: The Supreme Court will be the ultimate Jury. Any doubt on the Constitutionality from one Judge, reserves the liberty to the people and the action deemed unconstitutional..."
I didn't ignore it. I just didn't address that part specifically. If that's what you'd like to discuss fine: I do not think one judge should have the kind of authority. If you'd like to amend it so that a victory requires more than just a majority, that's fine. Let's 4/5 isn't good enough, perhaps 3/6 or even 2/7 should be the requirement? But I do not feel that one judge should have absolute authority because you cannot gauruntee that they are disagree for constitutional reasons. I mean, the fact that you bring up this point at all makes it clear that you are concerned that the SCOTUS does not always follow the constitution. That one judge who doesn't let a law pass cannot be guaranteed to have those interests at heart.
Kim Jong Un-ish is being too selective. There's actually already a broad political theory for what this is: totalitarianism.
Disagree? You're an enemy. Help a Jew? You're an enemy. Prefer capitalism? You're an enemy.
But that is not what it being discussed here.
And isn't it Ironic, I have become the enemy of those that cannot have a rational discussion. Shown right here on this very thread in less than one page of reply posts.
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.
