The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[CremeBrulee]

I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes. I would say that is what makes it great. The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change. That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles. Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.

 

[Sonny Clark]

In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?

Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.

320million people.

Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.

Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000

You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.

Umm...yes we can.

If 0.0000000004% cant do it

It doesnt mean "we cant."

It means the media is in your head, is what it means.

WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.

So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.

You told ed you were smart.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes. I would say that is what makes it great. The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change. That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles. Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.

Yes, I agree. It should be amended. On many issues.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag. No law implied or otherwise. GT has used the term 'explicit' where 'implied' is more appropriate. GT has crossed a line from dementia into insanity

Ok then go fly a flag on your neighbor's lawn wothout their consent genius.

You cant.

By law.

IMBECILE!!!

That would be a restriction on flying the flag. That would be violating a private property right.

What is interesting is that you do not know, recognize, or consider the difference. It's anarchistic or worse -- stupidity

 

[G.T.]

Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.

320million people.

Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.

Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000

You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.

Umm...yes we can.

If 0.0000000004% cant do it

It doesnt mean "we cant."

It means the media is in your head, is what it means.

WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.

So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.

You told ed you were smart.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.

If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Go ask one of our Vets that spilt his/her blood in combat defending the flag, if it's Ok to fly the American flag in their front yard.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.

Umm...yes we can.

If 0.0000000004% cant do it

It doesnt mean "we cant."

It means the media is in your head, is what it means.

WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.

So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.

You told ed you were smart.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.

If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.

No one ever said there was a "TREND". Did you see where anyone said that it was a "TREND"? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Go ask one of our Vets that spilt his/her blood in combat defending the flag, if it's Ok to fly the American flag in their front yard.

Many would defend property rights over the bullshit positioning of patriotism

 

[Sonny Clark]

Go ask one of our Vets that spilt his/her blood in combat defending the flag, if it's Ok to fly the American flag in their front yard.

Many would defend property rights over the bullshit positioning of patriotism

And many would likewise defend their right to fly the national flag.

 

[G.T.]

Umm...yes we can.

If 0.0000000004% cant do it

It doesnt mean "we cant."

It means the media is in your head, is what it means.

WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.

So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.

You told ed you were smart.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.

If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.

No one ever said there was a "TREND". Did you see where anyone said that it was a "TREND"? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.

Its illogical to make these "whats jappening to our country" threads and then support them with things that arent even trends.

I dont see the disconnect there.

 

[Sonny Clark]

WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.

So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.

You told ed you were smart.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.

If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.

No one ever said there was a "TREND". Did you see where anyone said that it was a "TREND"? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.

Its illogical to make these "whats jappening to our country" threads and then support them with things that arent even trends.

I dont see the disconnect there.

To each his own. I'm sure there are a million different opinions on the matter.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com

South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues

College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart

Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com

Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati

I think most of these could be and should be prohibited for reasons (HOA, code, safety) other than what was initially given for their removal. Almost all of the people were initially told to take them down because of complaints that the flags were offensive. This is America and that isn't a legitimate excuse. If I want to fly a gay pride, American, Confederate or even ISIS flag and it doesn't violate any rules so be it.

 

[regent]

I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes. I would say that is what makes it great. The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change. That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles. Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.

Yes, I agree. It should be amended. On many issues.

How many amendments would it take to cover all the thousands of changes that have taken place in running our government to date? Most changes and adjustments occur quietly and with little fan fare, many of them as necessary and proper.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes. I would say that is what makes it great. The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change. That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles. Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.

Yes, I agree. It should be amended. On many issues.

How many amendments would it take to cover all the thousands of changes that have taken place in running our government to date? Most changes and adjustments occur quietly and with little fan fare, many of them as necessary and proper.

It would take many changes.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

what??? The real issue was whether to impower govt to guard basic rights or whether such impowerment would be subverted and be used to take away rights.The most basic stuff like separation of powers was designed to limit the monster as much as possible.

Modern treasonous liberals live only to empower the monster!!

revisionist history? This quoted comment, isn't even up to that standadrd.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And many would likewise defend their right to fly the national flag.

Not on someone else's property.