Babagounj
Strength through joy
I read your link , no AR-15 mentioned .
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
I'm lazy. Did any one of those bring marriage into the conversation?
Thankfully then, the Court is comprised of "emotional nutjobs".
Maybe the only time conservatives can be be emotional is with a hard item in their hands.
I'm so sorry your side lost and now has another segment of the population that the government will no longer discriminate against.
(If that sentence doesn't illuminate what a knuckle-dragging, twisted party conservatives have become, nothing going does.)
it goes to show how INCAPABLE you are of finding things out for yourself. Whats next, you going to tell us FOX news told YOU that it was a BB gun?
TOS.
Its not the number of bullets fired OLDY, its the stupidity of it all.
It only took ONE bullet from this gun to kill this instructor at a vegas shooting range.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-an-uzi-said-the-gun-was-too-much-for-her/
TOS.
oldngray
nowhere special
When was vegas in Arizona?
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
I might be wrong, but I don't think it's entirely nuts to assume that two people can join into any contract that they want (in this case - marriage) given that said contract has absolutely no effect on anyone else.
Regardless of which amendment you feel 'gay' marriage, or any other form of marriage falls under, the larger point is that it's not the governments business what those two people do.
DOMA was as incorrect as the miscegenation laws in previous decades.
Is it your assertion that the Constitution is the final say in all matters? Maybe so, yet...
The Founders put in mechanisms for the Constitution to be flexible for changing times.
Not easily, and not quickly, but the provisions are there.
The Constitution was made to be a living document.
You talk guns and point to the Constitution...great.
Marriage isn't in the Constitution...great.
Space travel and asteroid mining-rights aren't in the Constitution either...should we not address them at all?
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Where does The Constitution state that it's meant to be a living document?
hence the " I might be wrong" statement
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
My side didn't lose. We all lost. I'm not a Conservative but I'd gladly be one over a liberal any day. I'd rather be a real democrat than a liberal. Or one of those libertarians that are flirting with the line that separates them from being anarchists than a liberal. Liberals truly are suffering from a mental disorder.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
The process for Amendments, for starters.
Is your assertion that we should slave ourselves to a 210 year old document, written in a wholly different time, and that there is no recourse for change?
If so, that's fine.
I don't agree.
I think the Founders were wise enough to create a tripartite government, with checks and balances, etc.
We can argue Hamilton vs. Jefferson all day long, but there are mechanisms in the Constitution for changes, simple fact.
To your original question, "Where does the Constitution State"...
There are many things the Constitution doesn't describe explicitly, and that's the point.
The Constitution is a balance between the 'States' and the (Federal) 'Government'.
If a thing isn't in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it's not a thing.
It's 2016, come on now.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
There is nothing in the document or it's Amendments that states that it to be treated as a living document. Its a legal document. Yes, its possible to add or repeal but just look at history for an indication of just how much of a "living" document it has been.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Yes, 'just look at history', etc.
I would submit to you that's a failure of process rather than intent.
Look, you and I have differing views about the 'letter' and the 'law'.
That's fine, and it's as intended.
But, although you may disagree with me about the flexible nature of the Constitution, I'll simply ask you again, is it your assertion that the Founders meant for the Constitution to be a static document, unchanging, forever and ever?
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Google is your friend.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
The Constitution itself was meant to be the blueprint for our government. The Bill of Rights was meant to (more or less) dictate what the government can't do and was meant to be amended. However...it was not meant to be reinterpreted as is in order to fit the times. And thats what is going on. What is happening nowadays is that judges and politicians are reinterpreting both on the fly. That is wrong.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
There's nothing you're saying that I disagree with.
There's nothing in the Constitution about 'gay' people.
Or about NASA's missions to the moon and Mars.
There's nothing in the Constitution about the Olympics, or cornea replacement surgery, or the INTERNET, or nuclear weapons, or robot cats.
I realize you and I disagree about the ramifications of the changes that are occurring, but you yourself have posted about how effed up the guvment is.
In this environment, where all three branches of government have, for all intents, abdicated their basic responsibilities, where do we go now?
Which part of the Constitution discusses mining rights on exoplanets?
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Did you want to ask me something?
do what you want.... I'm not a supe..
Similar threads
