On Constitutional Amendments.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives advocate constitutional amendments to take away civil rights [eg, marriage equality] while liberals dream of constitutional amendments to grant human rights and dignity [eg, right to health care, education, decent livable wages].

Conservatives would turn the calendar back some 230 years. Liberals try to bring America to 2015.

 

What? The supreme court ruled last thursday.

 

No conservatives would have just turned the calender back 14 years. The first gay marriage to be legally recognized was in 2001.

 

Historically, you are incorrect.

Liberals, socialist progressives , anarchist and others on the political left in America don't like the amendment process and no longer use it. That the left believes or have claimed that the Constitution is a "living" or "breathing" document that you can change the original intent or meaning at a whim without amending the Constitution usually by executive orders or by having activist federal judges who legislate from the bench.

Where as conservatives stick to the intent of the Constitution and recognize if the country decides that the Constitution is outdated or needs to be changed the Constitution states you go through the Constitutional amendment process. That no President or activist judges have the power to change the intent of the Constitution without using the Constitutional amendment process, which includes that all states have to be involved and ratify any amendment to the Constitution.

Lawfully the Constitution has only been amended 28 times since the adoption of the Constitution.

How many times have activist federal judges ignored the Constitution and legislated from the bench ? How many times have Presidents ignored the oath of office they took and ignored the Constitution and used executive orders or directives to circumvent Congress and the Constitution ?

 

You're trolling right? That's got to be what this is.

The liberals want to remove an amendment entirely, have as recently as 20 years ago attempted to erase part of the 1st amendment (PMRC), and want to tell private businesses who they can and can't do business with.

As far as marriage equality goes conservatives offered other options that gave the same "benefits" as marriage but called something different. Marriage has been and is still for many a religiously oriented word and want to keep it inline with a majority of religions in the world. That the liberals wouldn't accept anything other than the word marriage just shows their lack of respect for other people beliefs.

 

I demand proof that you're not being paid to post here by mediamatters.org.

 

Basically Liberals do not like the constitution or freedom. Your post is a lie right off the bat. What they do want is to impose their beliefs on other people by force. That is not freedom it is tyranny.

 

As a liberal, I'm going to avoid this thread because I'm seeing many conservatives and Christians accepting the recent SCOTUS decision.

No offense, heirtothewind

 

The fact that simply changing the word would make a difference just shows how childish the whole thing is.

 

I do not think that federal judges act capriciously when invalidating a state law, even when the law is voted in by the people. If the majority approves a law that Jews cannot own businesses or that Afro-Americans must live in segregated communities, then the federal judiciary has a duty to protect the rights of the minority from such democratic tyranny. [Federalist Paper No. 10]

Until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. [Barron v Baltimore, 1833]. Since 1925 [Gitlow v New York], state laws which infringe upon express or implied rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been invalidated; and federal legislation is almost always upheld under the General Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause, even in derogation of state law. See- Gonzales v Raich [DEA could seize 6 marijuana plants grown for personal use by person with valid medical marijuana card issued by California].

States' rights is now very limited to legislation on public health, education, welfare, safety, criminal law, property law, family law, expenditure of tax money, or efficiency of public administration -- but always subject to constitutional guarantees, as it should be.

The battle cry of ''states' rights'' was silenced with the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the New Deal, the Tenth Amendment has been virtually dead as almost all federal legislation is upheld under the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause. State laws are invalidated by the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Lawrence v. Texas - sodomy laws; Obergefell v Hodges - gay marriage ban].

The Tenth Amendment is merely a relic of the antebellum South and the last redoubt of reactionaries who long for the days of segregation, Jim Crow laws, communist witch hunts, and women in the kitchen rather than the workplace. With the adoption of uniform codes of law by the states [eg, federal rules of civil procedure and evidence, uniform commercial code, etc.], even traditional areas of state legislation such as public health, education, welfare, and safety are yielding to federal legislation and federal funding.

The court victory for same-sex marriage, however, is not the end of the struggle for gay rights. There is still private discrimination in employment and housing. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, must be amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Contrary to popular belief, the regulation of interstate commerce reaches wholly intrastate activity if the intrastate activity uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce [eg, communications or transportation] or has a real or potentially-substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Gonzales v Raich [DEA could seize 6 marijuana plants used solely for valid medical purposes by an individual with medical marijuana card]. The doctrine of states' rights, enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, is no longer a viable legal justification for anything.


The Civil War made a grammatical change from ''The United States are a nation.'' to '''The United States is a nation.'' Our laws should reflect that change.

 

Bovine excrement.

 

Judicial activism is a way for the law to keep pace with ever rapidly changing social values [eg, same-sex marriage] and technological advancements. It has been around since the common law system of Henry II [1154-1189], and is reinforced by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. The fundamental constitutional rights to interstate travel, marriage, and privacy [eg, birth control], as well as desegregation, have been the result of courageous judicial activism. [Brown v Bd of Education].

I am sick of hearing whining that a court overturned ''the will of the people.'' If a state or local government banned a minority group, it would be the function and duty of the judiciary to invalidate the law. The word ''democracy'' is a glittering generality -- like ''protect our children '' --- used to justify the most atrocious acts or to elect incompetent people to office.

Remember that everything Hitler did was legal and in accordance with laws passed by elected representatives of the people.

 

Now every constitutional scholar who didn't skate through college, who actually earned a GPA and made the "Deans List" knows that the lVX Amendment is unconstitutional.

Every liberal activist judge who legislates from the bench ignores that the authors of the lVX Amendment based the amendment on the "Law of Nature" not "Common Law."

 

Just a programming note: Please google search the OP's handle to see his permanent banning at other forums, and then decide for yourself whether to participate in his trolling.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled brainwashing, already in progress.

 

There are also crackpots who believe the earth is flat and created on October 23, 4004 BC.

 

Jesus Christ dude. This is why nobody takes hard core conservative tparty types seriously.

 

But but but liberals and progressive socialist say Christianity has nothing to do with America or the Constitution. I'm sure they also include Jesus Christ.

 

BTW- it is the XIV amendment, not IVX.

It is hard to find a conservative who is able to articulate his argument other than by flag-waving or bible-thumping or obscene gestures or foul language. Southern schools really need federal funding just to upgrade their curricula to basic reading, writing, and arithmetic.

 

Which is true.

I have no idea what this post has to do with mine.

 

I want to see you start attending Sunday School from now on.

 

Why?
.....

 

To amend for the purpose of assuring the original intent is what will work.

The labeling of "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right", is meaningless IF change is the goal.

None of those actually can know how to change it in a way that will not outrage the other.

What works is to KNOW the original intent.

It was not far from anarchy. However, it recognized that a degree of organization and authority would help civilize. It worked.

What happened was SABOTAGE of the framing documents. Imperfections were caused by the constant social pressure of loyalists. The most damaging imperfection is the one that prevented the people from maintaining the unity which won the revolutionary war.

That unity was gone in a generation. The words of Jefferson speak of that over and over. His words about the press indicate that the loyalists continued to divide the people and manipulate them away from the unity needed to "alter or abolish" the government the loyalists would see imposed over the one intended.

The deficiency in the First Amendment which omits mention of the PURPOSE of free speech is the first and greatest deficiency. From that, a great corruption of the peoples spirits AND partisan politics have been made the only politics Americans can conceive of.

The quoted post is proof of that.

The fact that Americans here cannot discuss the way to use the purpose of free speech for a lawful and peaceful revolution, altering or abolishing the government destructive to rights, proves it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...olution-defense-enforcement-constitution.html

 

The proper way is to look at the constitution as written and taken in the context of the original intent of the framers. That is not done today. The framers provided a way to change the constitution, via the amendment process. Other than that, the constitution was to say and mean what they wrote.

 

You brought up Jesus and I didn't know if you were referring to Jesus who has the taco truck down the street or Jesus Christ.

 

I didn't bring up Jesus. I used it as an expletive to express frustration with extreme right wing nuttery.