Equal Worth Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EWACampaign, Mar 19, 2005.

?

Would you support the Equal Worth Amendment?

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
    11.1%
  2. No

    16 vote(s)
    88.9%
  1. EWACampaign
    Online

    EWACampaign Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "...all men are created equal." As you know, the equality of "all men," as formally approved in the Declaration by the Congress on July 4, 1776, extended only to white males who owned property. To this day, the statement--"...all men are created equal"--remains ambiguous. The equality of ALL citizens of the United States was not approved by the Congress in 1776 and has yet to be declared in the Constitution of the United States of America. This is one purpose of the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT. We, as citizens of the United States, will not have equal rights extended to ALL of us until each and every citizen of the United States is recognized, Constitutionally, as an equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being members of the human race. Again, equal rights for ALL citizens of the United States will not occur until each and every citizen is recognized as an equal worth and value in self within the Constitution of the United States of America. This will require a Constitutional Amendment, which also includes the basic human right and basic human responsibility that follows from an explicit declaration of equality extending to each and every citizen of the United States. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), first proposed in 1923, has yet to be adopted into the U.S. Constitution is because, mistakenly, women have not been related to as being of equal worth and value compared to men. This is just one of the reasons why we need the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT. There is a second purpose of the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT. As Justice Anthony Scalia has recently made very clear, the Constitution of the United States is a “legal document.” As you and I know, if something is not written or contained within a legal document, then it does not exist. The Constitution does not contain the most basic of human rights and responsibilities for ALL citizens of the United States, as described in the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT, and it must in order to ensure, legally, that basic human rights and responsibilities are protected and upheld.

    ----------------
    EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA; Revised March 12, 2005)

    Section 1. It is the most irrevocable doctrine of this Constitution that each and every citizen of the United States is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

    Section 2. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other citizens.

    Section 3. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other citizens as of equal worth and value in themselves.

    Section 4. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    ----------------

    EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA): THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

    What you and I have in common is that we are both human beings--and that is why, at the very least, we are equal. In this respect, fundamentally, neither you nor I are superior or inferior to one another--we are each of equal worth and value in self; that is, solely on the basis of you and I being members of the human race. Is this fundamental stance regarding equality wrong? Yes or No? If it is wrong, please provide an alternative stance upon which our fundamental equality is based.



    Post edited by moderator (merlin1047). Website links removed as this post is primarily intended as advertising and not as a discussion item. Board Rule 7- Advertising -There is absolutely no advertising allowed! (Unless you want to pay for such advertising)
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I like it---subtle but I guess it has to be that way---those who wish the retain their minority status will come out of the woodwork to shoot it down but perhaps thats the idea. Exposure.
     
  3. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Baloney. That was NEVER the doctrine of the Constitution. The Constitution NEVER EVER dealt with relative "worth" of citizens. The Constitution simply states that we all have equal RIGHTS. The two concepts have nothing in common and ascribing the doctrine of "worth" is a both ignorant and false.

    We're now going to dictate how I have to "relate to" other citizens? I don't think so. If this were in the Constitution, I would not be able to call you a worthless, slack-jawed, glassy-eyed, mouth-breathing, leftist half-wit. And I treasure that right far too much to give it up. People do NOT have the same relative worth. Worth is not something that the Constitution can confer on us. Worth is an earned attribute, not something given away or awarded by simple declaration. This is simply a grossly stupid attempt to codify the leftist philosophy of self-worth and "feel good about yourself". Well the conservative philosophy is to do something worthwhile and EARN the right to feel good about yourself.

    So now everytime I utter something politically incorrect, you're going to invoke the Constitution and convict me of a hate crime. You leftist swine are thoroughly disgusting. This proposal is the most reprehensible piece of garbage I've ever read. It would essentially revoke the free speech rights of every American.

    Now with one statement, you seek to trump every other aspect of the Constitution, override the concept of state's rights and impose your leftist philosophy on the rest of us. You fascist pig. You scream Bush is a nazi and then you come out with crap like this. Buster, you've accomplished something this morning. I don't usually get this graphic, but you piss me off to no end. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought and died in opposition to governments who would trample the rights of citizens in this manner. And now here you are seeking to do the same thing not with bullets but merely with the stroke of a pen. Rot in hell you scumbag.

    We may both be human beings, but you are a total waste of my air and the sooner you get run over by a steamroller, the better.

    Do you really think that the rest of us are unable to see that this is simply another leftist ploy to put homosexuals and other perverts into the mainstream? Not only that, but this garbage will eliminate the death penalty because the child molesting murderer in Florida is a human being and according to you, we are not "superior or inferior to one another".

    Our "fundamental equality" is in the rights outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no value judgement regarding the relative worth of one human being versus another. Your proposed amendment makes a total mockery of the Constitution. You seek to override other rights such as free speech with this crap amendment.

    You are thoroughly disgusting. I would have dumped your entire piece of crap post for violating board rules, but I think that it is important for other members to see the enemies of the Constitution at work.
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Dillo, my friend - I know it's early, but I think you need to re-read this thing and see if you still come up with the same conclusion.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    depends on the real motives of this effort--I can see it being used as a tool that can accomplish vastly different things depending on the agenda of those pushing for it.
     
  6. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Exactly. And who do you think is pushing this garbage? Do you really think that the government should have the authority to claim that every citizen has equal WORTH? Sounds suspiciously like a socialist principle to me.

    Something like this would be used as a tool by every pervert in the country to claim that they are being discriminated against. NAMBLA member could claim that their "right" to be related to equally is being violated and on and on.

    No, this is not a campaign for equal rights. These people are not concerned with your rights and mine. They are concerned with forcing their agenda on the rest of us. They seek to use this as a tool to enforce homosexual marriage, to impose politically correct speech codes, to make unpopular speech punishable by law, and to override all other rights granted us in the Constitution.

    This thing is a mockery. Those that push it are more dangerous to our freedoms than any terrorist. Surely you can see where this is headed, especially when you place something like this into the hands of the ACLU and leftist judges.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    definately a socialist flavor to it but the discussion of "worth" would be interesting. I'd love to hear these socialists climb out of the closet and try to defend their position and explain to everyone what the USA would be like if they succeed in their efforts. I guess what I really support is open debate on the issue and not the issue itself..
     
  8. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    This is a true liberal, wishy washy, crock of shit. Just wishy washy enough so that it could and would be twisted and misconstrued in every possible way by the mealy mouthed, pencil necked liberals.

    It sounds to me like a "back door" way... no pun intended... for the queers to say the constitution now says we're all of "equal worth", so now we should be able to "marry".

    Leave the damn constitution alone. It's good enough the way it reads now.
     
  9. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    Shit... I should have read your second post Merlin1047, but in my rush to post, I didn't.

    We were thinking the same thing.
     
  10. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    That was very graceful and witty back-peddling dillo... my hats off to ya... :cof:

    Hey... it's early.
     

Share This Page