Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[westwall]

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.

It's very obvious if you understand basic English.

 

[Bern80]

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.

I think the inclusion of the militia concept actually makes it clearer as to the intent of the ammendment. The purpose was so that the people would have a defense against the central government should it become truly tyrannical. The inclusion of militia implies it is intended for the states to be able to defend themselves against the central government with force if necessary.

In a more general sense it clearly implies that people have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if neccessary.

 

[sangha]

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

Boy are you dumb!!

Even the link you posted shows that a majority from BOTH parties voted for the CRA.

Besides, we're not talking D vs R; We're talking convervative vs liberal, and the dems that opposed the CRA, like the reps who opposed the CRA, were CONSERVATIVES

Try to keep up with the discussion, OK?

 

[sangha]

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.

Relying on the Federailist Papers to discern original intent is just as foolish as believing in original intent in the first place.

The FP usually offers more than one side of an argument. If anything, the FPs make it clear that there was no original intent. Was their original intent to end slavery at some point, or continue it forever? Was the right to keep and bear arms limited to that which would provide a well organized militia, or is the right a personal one that should be unfettered?

For another, the FP makes clear the Framers utter revulsion at the idea of a standing army. Are the original intent wingnuts really prepared to completely dissolve our military to conform to their absurd concept of original intent?

 

[sangha]

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.

IMO, you need to re-evaluate your hallucinations because I never said anything about that

 

[sangha]

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.

Another wingnut moron here to prove wingnuts don't understand the Constitution

The BOR recognizes some rights (ex the 1st) that only apply to citizens and other rights (ex Due Process) it recognizes in all "PERSONS" regardless of citizenship.

 

[sangha]

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.

"the people" is a reference to US citizens. "person" refers to anyone regardless of citizenship

 

[sangha]

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.

I think the inclusion of the militia concept actually makes it clearer as to the intent of the ammendment. The purpose was so that the people would have a defense against the central government should it become truly tyrannical. The inclusion of militia implies it is intended for the states to be able to defend themselves against the central government with force if necessary.

In a more general sense it clearly implies that people have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if neccessary.

Ummm, the 2nd says nothing about personal defense.

And the FPs make it clear that the Framers idea of the 2nd providing a defense against the central govt only worked in the absence of a standing army. The idea that the 2nd can serve that purpose against a professional army is laughable

 

[JiggsCasey]

The situational ethics of the modern con man:

Jan. 2001 - Jan. 2009:

"Shut up and be grateful we keep you safe at night. We'll torture whoever we want, and tap your phones and email too! Our trickle down economics will allow you pay your mortgage, as long as you work two jobs and never join a union. Don't ask about our privatized gains and socialized loss, it's for your own good. The corporation rules!"

After Jan. 2009:

"Impeach! Impeach! The Kenyan socialist is trying to bankrupt America!"

Riiiiiiiiiight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Another wingnut moron here to prove wingnuts don't understand the Constitution

The BOR recognizes some rights (ex the 1st) that only apply to citizens and other rights (ex Due Process) it recognizes in all "PERSONS" regardless of citizenship.

U.S. citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights. Now show me in the bill of rights where it gives other people from other country's such rights?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the situational ethics of the modern con man:

Jan. 2001 - jan. 2009:

"shut up and be grateful we keep you safe at night. We'll torture whoever we want, and tap your phones and email too! Our trickle down economics will allow you pay your mortgage, as long as you work two jobs and never join a union. Don't ask about our privatized gains and socialized loss, it's for your own good. The corporation rules!"

after jan. 2009:

"impeach! Impeach! The kenyan socialist is trying to bankrupt america!"

riiiiiiiiiight.

then if obama is not intentionally fucking the economy up he's the stuipest son of a bitch america has elected.

 

[sangha]

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.

Another wingnut moron here to prove wingnuts don't understand the Constitution

The BOR recognizes some rights (ex the 1st) that only apply to citizens and other rights (ex Due Process) it recognizes in all "PERSONS" regardless of citizenship.

U.S. citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights. Now show me in the bill of rights where it gives other people from other country's such rights?

First, you showed us you don't understand the constitution. Now, you've shown us you don't understand English

In the post you quoted, I gave an example of rights that non-citizens have under the constitution. Try re-reading it. Maybe moving your lips while you read will help.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another wingnut moron here to prove wingnuts don't understand the Constitution

The BOR recognizes some rights (ex the 1st) that only apply to citizens and other rights (ex Due Process) it recognizes in all "PERSONS" regardless of citizenship.

U.S. citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights. Now show me in the bill of rights where it gives other people from other country's such rights?

First, you showed us you don't understand the constitution. Now, you've shown us you don't understand English

In the post you quoted, I gave an example of rights that non-citizens have under the constitution. Try re-reading it. Maybe moving your lips while you read will help.

Do you know what the bill of rights are part of? I know you do not understand it. But try to explian it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

then if obama is not intentionally fucking the economy up he's the stuipest son of a bitch america has elected.

whatever...

 

[sangha]

U.S. citizens have rights protected by the bill of rights. Now show me in the bill of rights where it gives other people from other country's such rights?

First, you showed us you don't understand the constitution. Now, you've shown us you don't understand English

In the post you quoted, I gave an example of rights that non-citizens have under the constitution. Try re-reading it. Maybe moving your lips while you read will help.

Do you know what the bill of rights are part of? I know you do not understand it. But try to explian it.

Idiot!!! I already posted about where the BOR recognizes the rights of non-citizens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First, you showed us you don't understand the constitution. Now, you've shown us you don't understand English

In the post you quoted, I gave an example of rights that non-citizens have under the constitution. Try re-reading it. Maybe moving your lips while you read will help.

Do you know what the bill of rights are part of? I know you do not understand it. But try to explian it.

Idiot!!! I already posted about where the BOR recognizes the rights of non-citizens.

and your an idiot if you think they do.

 

[sangha]

Do you know what the bill of rights are part of? I know you do not understand it. But try to explian it.

Idiot!!! I already posted about where the BOR recognizes the rights of non-citizens.

and your an idiot if you think they do.

Only wingnuts are stupid enough to think the BoR only applies to citizens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Idiot!!! I already posted about where the BOR recognizes the rights of non-citizens.

and your an idiot if you think they do.

Only wingnuts are stupid enough to think the BoR only applies to citizens.

Show me where it mentions anything about other country's?

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

 

[sangha]

and your an idiot if you think they do.

Only wingnuts are stupid enough to think the BoR only applies to citizens.

Show me where it mentions anything about other country's?

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

I have already posted an example of the BoR recognizing a right that belongs to ALL "persons", regardless of citizenship. If you didn't understand the answer the first time, giving it a 2nd time is a waste of time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Only wingnuts are stupid enough to think the BoR only applies to citizens.

Show me where it mentions anything about other country's?

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

I have already posted an example of the BoR recognizing a right that belongs to ALL "persons", regardless of citizenship. If you didn't understand the answer the first time, giving it a 2nd time is a waste of time.

You've posted nothing.
Since you think everybody has rights that are protected by the bill of rights I have a question.
Do they have the right to keep and bear arm protected by the second Amendment?
Do they have the right to vote? Do they have a right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances