Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.
Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.
One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.
Another senile rant, RGS?
Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
Doesn't it say something about life in there?
What the Constitution fails to do is define person, not protect the rights of unborn children, which is why it is legally murder to shoot a pregnant woman and kill that unborn child. Roe v Wade was about balancing the right of privacy of the mother over the right of the child. It was not about denying that the child had rights, if it was it would not have gotten into all that convoluted debate about viability.
Roe v. Wade, by establishing that women had the right to an abortion in the first trimester declares unequivocally that the 1st trimester fetus has no rights as a person. That Roe v. Wade leaves later term abortion in the hands of the state in reality also declares that later term fetuses have no constitutionally protected rights as persons, since the states can in fact make later term abortion legal.
No it does not.
Laci and Conner's Law (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate
All Roe v Wade does is give the mother's rights legal precedence over the unborn child, it does not eliminate any rights the child has.
So the laws making it a criminal act to kill a mother, and her unborn child, are all unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court has allowed them to stand? Interesting.
That's a non sequitur, sorry.
What makes it illogical?
Another senile rant, RGS?
Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
If rightringer said that he's a fucking retard.
Roe v. Wade, by establishing that women had the right to an abortion in the first trimester declares unequivocally that the 1st trimester fetus has no rights as a person. That Roe v. Wade leaves later term abortion in the hands of the state in reality also declares that later term fetuses have no constitutionally protected rights as persons, since the states can in fact make later term abortion legal.
No it does not.
Laci and Conner's Law (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate
All Roe v Wade does is give the mother's rights legal precedence over the unborn child, it does not eliminate any rights the child has.
How can you be that stupid? If the fetus had constitutional rights as a person you certainly couldn't give the mother the right to terminate it, any more than you could give a mother the right to put her 2 year old to death.
No it does not.
Laci and Conner's Law (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate
All Roe v Wade does is give the mother's rights legal precedence over the unborn child, it does not eliminate any rights the child has.
How can you be that stupid? If the fetus had constitutional rights as a person you certainly couldn't give the mother the right to terminate it, any more than you could give a mother the right to put her 2 year old to death.
A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.
How can you be that stupid? If the fetus had constitutional rights as a person you certainly couldn't give the mother the right to terminate it, any more than you could give a mother the right to put her 2 year old to death.
A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.
There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...
...to get back to the OP.
Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
If rightringer said that he's a fucking retard.
He said it in at least one thread.
Ever think he was being sarcastic?
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.
Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.
One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.
Another senile rant, RGS?
Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.
There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...
...to get back to the OP.
There you go again...being retarded.
Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.
I really wish that would get absorbed by a bunch of simplistic morons.
No it does not.
Laci and Conner's Law (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate
All Roe v Wade does is give the mother's rights legal precedence over the unborn child, it does not eliminate any rights the child has.
How can you be that stupid? If the fetus had constitutional rights as a person you certainly couldn't give the mother the right to terminate it, any more than you could give a mother the right to put her 2 year old to death.
A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.
There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...
...to get back to the OP.
There you go again...being retarded.
Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.
I really wish that would get absorbed by a bunch of simplistic morons.
Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. Don't do that if you want to talk to me.
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Nothing in the section dealing with the Judiciary does it grant Judges or the Supreme Court the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution.
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Supreme Court is accepted as the arbiter of what is Constitutional. It however is NOT recognized as having the power to CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution. Nor should it be recognized as being able to add unwritten meanings into said document.
Today's Liberals have made the claim that it is to time consuming and to archaic to use the Amendment process. They instead claim the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts are at liberty to simply CHANGE the meaning of the articles and clauses in the Constitution.
One on this board in particular has STATED this in more then one thread.
Ok then, who decides what the 'meaning' of the Constitution is and who decides whether or not the Supreme Court has in fact changed the 'meaning'?
Where is that process provided for in the Constitution?
Another senile rant, RGS?
Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
I never said any such thing..
I only asked, if conservatives love the Constitution so much, why would they want to change so many parts of it?
I also stated that the amendment process is too cumbersome to "interpret" the constitution. That is what courts are for
Ask Rightwinger he has stated in at least 3 threads now that the Constitution should never be amended again. Further he stated in one thread that it is to time consuming to use the amendment process and that Federal Courts should in fact simply make the changes needed by changing what different parts of said document says and means.
I never said any such thing..
I only asked, if conservatives love the Constitution so much, why would they want to change so many parts of it?
I also stated that the amendment process is too cumbersome to "interpret" the constitution. That is what courts are for
You have had two people t say you did say it.
I never said any such thing..
I only asked, if conservatives love the Constitution so much, why would they want to change so many parts of it?
I also stated that the amendment process is too cumbersome to "interpret" the constitution. That is what courts are for
You have had two people t say you did say it.
link?
