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.
Or people who really don't WANT it to read what it reads. So they try to fool people into believing it needs to be "re-interpreted" to mean something else.
Which is why we go to the writings and words of those who wrote the Constitution.
Or people who really don't WANT it to read what it reads. So they try to fool people into believing it needs to be "re-interpreted" to mean something else.
I'd say conservatives are the most guilty of this when it comes to freedom of religion.
NOWHERE in the constitution is God, Jesus, the Bible, or a Christian nation mentioned. The only two mentions of religion are the establishment clause and the banning of religious tests. Yet Republicans insist on whittling away at both.
There’s no pathway to civility ? How long are you expecting these issues to be our main problems. Teens I talk to, that’s not what they are worried about. My almost 17 yr old will vote in the next election. Hmmm
"As for the 2nd amendment, I believe it needs to re-written to make clear it intention.
Above any other amendment, the 2nd has had more arguments as to it's content, than any other amendment."
Because ANTI-gunners do NOT read what the WRITERS ACTUALLY HAD IN MIND.
It is ALL there in black and white, written so even an 8th grader can understand.
Apparently not.
The supreme court has had to interpret the amendments more than once.
That means people did not understand the written words, and they were far from being 8th graders.
I'd say conservatives are the most guilty of this when it comes to freedom of religion.
NOWHERE in the constitution is God, Jesus, the Bible, or a Christian nation mentioned. The only two mentions of religion are the establishment clause and the banning of religious tests. Yet Republicans insist on whittling away at both.
Apparently not.
The supreme court has had to interpret the amendments more than once.
That means people did not understand the written words, and they were far from being 8th graders.
Do you understand what that interpreting is supposed to be?
What does the Constitution say compared the issue in question.
It's that simple and the COnstitution is simply written as well.
There are no hard to understand nor any hidden mysteries within it either.
No, but we need a Constitutional amendment that says the government can place reasonable restrictions on putting others at risk of a dangerous virus, because some people just don't get it.
Is it ok for fed gov to fine a co. for 'misinformation'? We need clarification. And asap:
The Health Misinformation Act will be introduced to the Senate on Thursday by Amy Klobuchar:
- Internet platforms such as Facebook and Google will be required to take down vaccine misinformation or held liable
-A court would adjudicate any liability
-directs the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidelines on what constitutes health misinformation. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml#newcomment
No, but we need a Constitutional amendment that says the government can place reasonable restrictions on putting others at risk of a dangerous virus, because some people just don't get it.
You can't work or produce are not reasonable restrictions.
That is what really hurt us with the current virus.
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.
