Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[newpolitics]

... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.

 

[westwall]

Won't you admit that for a document they claim to love so much, they sure want to change a lot of it

Not really, but I guess it depends on how you quantify "a lot." How many amendments have the conservatives really proposed since the surge of modern conservatism, ie. the Reagan years? They've suggested amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion and to define marriage, neither of which I agree with. I think they tried an amendment for term limits in 1995 that failed. Other than that, I can't think of anything else they've seriously discussed amending.

Conservatives fought what proposed amendments?

Start with the Equal Rights amendment and work your way back.

The right, conservatism, has fought every single amendment that was proposed to make equality in America a reality. Conservatives fought Lincoln.

Last time I checked it was the REPUBLICANS who worked with LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over the yowling and howling of the Democrats. Or is that just my imagination?

You will please note the wide margins of support from the Republican party as opposed to the Democrat party.

Get thee back to school.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.

retarded one Are you saying lincoln wasn't a racist?

 

[newpolitics]

... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.

retarded one Are you saying lincoln wasn't a racist?

Actually, I don't know. What is important here is that it doesn't matter whether he was or he wasn't racist, because that is his personal business. His actions as President speak louder than words, and are what are importantly historically and what he did stood for liberty for all, which is a LITTLE more important than how he felt personally about some people. Him being was racist, as you claim, was a red herring in the context of the argument that was being stated. I can be a total racist, xenophobe, and everybody could know it, but if I gave all of my wealth to a charity foundation to help promote equality, would what I felt or believed really matter to anyone? No. What would be important was that I gave to help create equality. That is my point. Actions speak way louder than words or personal beliefs, especially when you are POTUS.

Lincoln's actions led to THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY. Who really cares what his motivations or his personal beliefs are? Do you think slaves really cared? I doubt it. Further, I don't believe he was a racist, I am just stating a case that even if it WERE true, it wouldn't fucking matter. Retarded one...

 

[konradv]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent. Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.

OK, but you still believe in a non-existent concept, "original intent". There never was any such thing, it presumes all the Founders were of like mind.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Not really, but I guess it depends on how you quantify "a lot." How many amendments have the conservatives really proposed since the surge of modern conservatism, ie. the Reagan years? They've suggested amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion and to define marriage, neither of which I agree with. I think they tried an amendment for term limits in 1995 that failed. Other than that, I can't think of anything else they've seriously discussed amending.

Conservatives fought what proposed amendments?

Start with the Equal Rights amendment and work your way back.

The right, conservatism, has fought every single amendment that was proposed to make equality in America a reality. Conservatives fought Lincoln.

Last time I checked it was the REPUBLICANS who worked with LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over the yowling and howling of the Democrats. Or is that just my imagination?

He said conservatives fought the equal rights amendment, not Republicans. The Republicans and Democrats of today are not the same Republicans and Democrats of 50 years ago.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent. Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.

OK, but you still believe in a non-existent concept, "original intent". There never was any such thing, it presumes all the Founders were of like mind.

Yes, I do believe in original intent. You are correct that the Founders did not see everything the same way. That is evident in the debates between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton over the "general welfare" clause, for example, but there are parts of the Constitution where it is more than obvious what was intended, such as the Second Amendment. The Federalist Papers are a good reference for original intent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

... republicans these days are fucking retarded, as exemplified by this last red herring just above.

retarded one Are you saying lincoln wasn't a racist?

Actually, I don't know. What is important here is that it doesn't matter whether he was or he wasn't racist, because that is his personal business. His actions as President speak louder than words, and are what are importantly historically and what he did stood for liberty for all, which is a LITTLE more important than how he felt personally about some people. Him being was racist, as you claim, was a red herring in the context of the argument that was being stated. I can be a total racist, xenophobe, and everybody could know it, but if I gave all of my wealth to a charity foundation to help promote equality, would what I felt or believed really matter to anyone? No. What would be important was that I gave to help create equality. That is my point. Actions speak way louder than words or personal beliefs, especially when you are POTUS.

Lincoln's actions led to THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY. Who really cares what his motivations or his personal beliefs are? Do you think slaves really cared? I doubt it. Further, I don't believe he was a racist, I am just stating a case that even if it WERE true, it wouldn't fucking matter. Retarded one...

Get informed

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” — Abraham Lincoln

 

[Immanuel]

retarded one Are you saying lincoln wasn't a racist?

Actually, I don't know. What is important here is that it doesn't matter whether he was or he wasn't racist, because that is his personal business. His actions as President speak louder than words, and are what are importantly historically and what he did stood for liberty for all, which is a LITTLE more important than how he felt personally about some people. Him being was racist, as you claim, was a red herring in the context of the argument that was being stated. I can be a total racist, xenophobe, and everybody could know it, but if I gave all of my wealth to a charity foundation to help promote equality, would what I felt or believed really matter to anyone? No. What would be important was that I gave to help create equality. That is my point. Actions speak way louder than words or personal beliefs, especially when you are POTUS.

Lincoln's actions led to THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY. Who really cares what his motivations or his personal beliefs are? Do you think slaves really cared? I doubt it. Further, I don't believe he was a racist, I am just stating a case that even if it WERE true, it wouldn't fucking matter. Retarded one...

Get informed

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” — Abraham Lincoln

Concerning Emancipation: Fourth Debate

Background

In 1858, Senator Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln faced each other in a series of seven debates in the race for Illinois senator. The central question was whether slavery should be extended to the territories: Douglas and the Democratic party believed that the territories themselves should decide whether to allow slavery, whereas Lincoln and his new Republican party believed that slavery should be banned from the territories. The Dred Scott case of 1857 said that neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could exclude slavery from a territory and that no African American, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States.

Sounds to me like that was probably the Politically Correct thing to say back then. That does not necessarily mean that he believed what he said... not withstanding the fact that we are talking about "Honest Abe".

In other words, most likely he said that because he was a politician and saying something different would have cost him votes.

Frigging liberals and their insistence that everyone has to remain PC!

Immie

 

[Liberty]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

after i have disproved this falsehood multiple times in multiple threads i see you still spouting it, knowing full well that you are full of shit...that says A LOT about your character.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, I don't know. What is important here is that it doesn't matter whether he was or he wasn't racist, because that is his personal business. His actions as President speak louder than words, and are what are importantly historically and what he did stood for liberty for all, which is a LITTLE more important than how he felt personally about some people. Him being was racist, as you claim, was a red herring in the context of the argument that was being stated. I can be a total racist, xenophobe, and everybody could know it, but if I gave all of my wealth to a charity foundation to help promote equality, would what I felt or believed really matter to anyone? No. What would be important was that I gave to help create equality. That is my point. Actions speak way louder than words or personal beliefs, especially when you are POTUS.

Lincoln's actions led to THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY. Who really cares what his motivations or his personal beliefs are? Do you think slaves really cared? I doubt it. Further, I don't believe he was a racist, I am just stating a case that even if it WERE true, it wouldn't fucking matter. Retarded one...

Get informed

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” — Abraham Lincoln

Concerning Emancipation: Fourth Debate

Background

In 1858, Senator Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln faced each other in a series of seven debates in the race for Illinois senator. The central question was whether slavery should be extended to the territories: Douglas and the Democratic party believed that the territories themselves should decide whether to allow slavery, whereas Lincoln and his new Republican party believed that slavery should be banned from the territories. The Dred Scott case of 1857 said that neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could exclude slavery from a territory and that no African American, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States.

Sounds to me like that was probably the Politically Correct thing to say back then. That does not necessarily mean that he believed what he said... not withstanding the fact that we are talking about "Honest Abe".

In other words, most likely he said that because he was a politician and saying something different would have cost him votes.

Frigging liberals and their insistence that everyone has to remain PC!

Immie

If thats what you think so be it.

 

[DiveCon]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

wingnut morons like YOU want to ignore it and have laws written that violate it
amending it IS the constitutional way to do thing

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

[The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That's not entirely true. Slavery was a huge issue when the nation was being formed and they fought over it profusely. The northerners were opposed to slavery and the southerners were in favor of it for economic reasons. Ultimately, the north caved because with the British at their doorstep they felt it was of more urgency to provide for a united front against Britain, allowing for the issue of slavery to be addressed at a later time, which we did, though I imagine not the way they would have envisioned.

 

[Bern80]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

You are correct.
The Dems just throw the whole thing out, no picking and choosing for them.

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

Now you have. What a fucking joke you are Jillian.

 

[Bern80]

Won't you admit that for a document they claim to love so much, they sure want to change a lot of it

Not really, but I guess it depends on how you quantify "a lot." How many amendments have the conservatives really proposed since the surge of modern conservatism, ie. the Reagan years? They've suggested amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion and to define marriage, neither of which I agree with. I think they tried an amendment for term limits in 1995 that failed. Other than that, I can't think of anything else they've seriously discussed amending.

Another wingnut admits that the right wants to limit the peoples' rights

And of course you can't think of anything else. Even though I posted a list of several, you still can't think of them.

Maybe you need to reevauluate your premise that the right is composed entirely or even predominantly of social conservatives.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

You are correct.
The Dems just throw the whole thing out, no picking and choosing for them.

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

and i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who actually understood a single thing about the constitution, no matter how many times they say the words.

but thanks for playing.

and i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who actually understood a single thing about the constitution, no matter how many times they say the words.

I laugh at you when you make a claim like this added with the other comments.
There is no such thing as seperation of Church and state
Do you know what habeas corpus? No one wants to do away with this
4th Amendment? What American citizen wants to take this away from another American Citizen?

OH I get it this is your bitch session for non Americans and gitmo. As I said you do not understand the subject you are talking about and claim Right wingers do not understand the Constitution.
Only American citizens are granted rights protected by the bill of Rights. So try again.

 

[konradv]

Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent. Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.

OK, but you still believe in a non-existent concept, "original intent". There never was any such thing, it presumes all the Founders were of like mind.

Yes, I do believe in original intent. You are correct that the Founders did not see everything the same way. That is evident in the debates between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton over the "general welfare" clause, for example, but there are parts of the Constitution where it is more than obvious what was intended, such as the Second Amendment. The Federalist Papers are a good reference for original intent.

Even the 2nd amendment isn't that obvious. Why in that amendment does it refer to "the people" as having the right with in the 4th it's "a person"? Sounds like the 2nd is a "collective right", while the 4th is a "personal right". That and the "militia" clause, make even the second unclear.

 

[Ozmar]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Yep, screw the Bill of Rights.

 

[Capitalist]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Yep, screw the Bill of Rights.

How so?

 

[DiveCon]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Yep, screw the Bill of Rights.

um, sangha is a wingnut