Say NO to the Census

[Spectator]

I find it disturbing when people from other countries where they have less rights and freedoms suggest that we need to change the very thing that helps us keep ours. They have no idea what they are talking about!

I'm an American Citizen, and I sometimes see the need for an amendment. Not a rewrite, or a mass cross out, but some revisions. Many US presidents thought the same, and that's how equal rights for women, races, etc. have come to be. I've read the US constitution and all the amendments and am pretty scared by the fact that the Patriot act, NAFTA, and DADT, NCLB haven't been repealed. Those 4 acts have done more damage to our constitution and country then any single Liberal or Conservative has ever done alone.

They want to change or "revise" OUR constitution when they don't even know what it is or what it does.

Actually, US history is taught in most of the first world countries and many know what our constitution says. The US is actually quite odd in that it mostly only focuses on itself.

Change part of it and where does it end?

The Deceleration of Independence calls for constant vigilance and change that the population is responsible for. If the Population needs to change something about our government or constitution. We have the right to do it.

THe constitution protects us from corrupt government, like everyone else out there's countries.

[/quote]Our Government is just as corrupt as most of Europe. We were almost thrown out of the UN because our last president refused to allow the UN's election inspectors to check out the ballots that happened during the 2000 election, then again in 2004 when the US invaded Iraq before UN consensus.

 

[jasoncran]

if we were thrown out of the u.n. then who would fund that thing. dadt needs to remain.

i''m a former bi. that life aint normal. i dont want to be forced to live with a man that may openly like me sexually. if i must then i want to share my bunk with a woman plain and simple.

 

[Spectator]

if we were thrown out of the u.n. then who would fund that thing.

That's pretty much the only reason why we are still in there.

dadt needs to remain.

i''m a former bi. that life aint normal. i dont want to be forced to live with a man that may openly like me sexually. if i must then i want to share my bunk with a woman plain and simple.

I don't want to get into this debate. You guys sure are raren to go on these gay topics. :ohwell

The only reason I even stand up for DADT to be repealed is because our Second Amendment gives all citizens the right to bear arms and form a militia. A more modern terminology would be, the right to serve and protect this nation.

If you really want to continue that topic, lets move it to another thread to not side track this anymore then it already is.

 

[jasoncran]

lol, militias are illegal are monitered just like the kkk, the black panthers, and other hate groups. i would loose my military career over joining a miliitia.

the militias refered to in the constitution are of the function of goverment, not the people. the right to bear arms belongs to the people plain and simple.

militias are the older word for what we know as the reserves and the national guard, and the latter is what i have been doing for over 18yrs.

 

[Nick]

I sometimes see the need for an amendment. Not a rewrite, or a mass cross out, but some revisions. Many US presidents thought the same, and that's how equal rights for women, races, etc. have come to be.

...

Actually, US history is taught in most of the first world countries and many know what our constitution says. The US is actually quite odd in that it mostly only focuses on itself.

...

The Deceleration of Independence calls for constant vigilance and change that the population is responsible for. If the Population needs to change something about our government or constitution. We have the right to do it.

...

Our Government is just as corrupt as most of Europe. We were almost thrown out of the UN because our last president refused to allow the UN's election inspectors to check out the ballots that happened during the 2000 election, then again in 2004 when the US invaded Iraq before UN consensus.[/quote]
Very much agree, Spectator.

It is quite well-kown that non-American nations know more about the US than the US knows about non-American nations. I know it's a generalisation, but it seems to be quite true.

When was the consitution written? Hundreds of years ago? Revisions have been made since then, and that should continue to be the case.

Yes, I would agree that much ot the UN is affected by what the United States does. It doesn't mean that the United States is right, though.

-----

Let's not turn this itno a gay debate please! totopic

 

[Rick W]

Let's not turn this itno a gay debate please! totopic

agreed


totopic

 

[jasoncran]

i'm for any constitutional amendment done by the elective process , but not by activist judges.

 

[Nick]

i'm for any constitutional amendment done by the elective process , but not by activist judges.

I would agree there.

 

[Spectator]

i'm for any constitutional amendment done by the elective process , but not by activist judges.

Can someone explain this to me? Every time I hear this, it turns out they where only doing Judicial review.

 

[jasoncran]

i'm for any constitutional amendment done by the elective process , but not by activist judges.

Can someone explain this to me? Every time I hear this, it turns out they where only doing Judicial review.
the legalization of certain rights in the north that were allowed when the laws werent even there on yay or nay. ie maine. then the bill was turned over has they took it to the peoples.

 

[Spectator]

i'm for any constitutional amendment done by the elective process , but not by activist judges.

Can someone explain this to me? Every time I hear this, it turns out they where only doing Judicial review.

the legalization of certain rights in the north that were allowed when the laws werent even there on yay or nay. ie maine. then the bill was turned over has they took it to the peoples.

What bill? What rights? Who?


If it about civil liberties and rights from the constitution, then the supreme court has every right ( Not to mention its Job)to overturn laws that violate those rights. :ohwell


It was the Supreme court and President Lincoln who freed the slaves.

 

[jasoncran]

the state of maine legalized gay marriage via judical decisions then the people pressed for the bill to put forth and it was voted against and gay marriages arent recongnized there.

interpretation is one thing, but somethings are clearly spelled out and need to be redifinded. ie the 2nd amendment. some judges do believe that the constiution says guns are for the militia. read it and it doenst. think sotomayor.