Constitutional amendment banning second Bush term

Ah yes...we have no other choice than to cast reason aside and let this ham-handed buffoon profane our constitution.

It will be a monumentally black day in our history if Bush gets his way.

 

Where will it end?

 

Hard Left

I am drawn like a moth to a flame when I see the hard left at it again. The loonies have been let out of their cages and are on display for all to see. By the way, love your boy Kerry picking the boy wonder Edwards. Look at how his dear trial lawyers have increased the cost of health care! Yummy, yummy...

Oh to be a leftist! You never have to worry about logic... all you have to do is curse and swear and "emote."

Note the "diversity" in the Kerry ticket, too! Soooo many millionaires! Sooooo many white men. Sooooo many hard leftists! THAT, my friend, is diversity!

What's that buffoon Algore been up to lately? What's his latest rant?

 

Ban dcv...............

Ummm, how about a DegreeInfo amendment to ban dcv from posting...............

 

Re: Ban dcv...............

I'd say that's a pretty good parallel to Bush's proposed amendment.

 

The decision as to whether allow such a constitutional amendment should come to pass should be left in the hands of the families of the soldiers and victims who lost their lives fighting for Bush's selfish prophesies.

 

Democratic heartburn

No, the decision is properly left in the hands of the people who will have their voice take action. The people spoke, Bush was elected, and leftists moaned and groaned about how unfair the system is. The people of California spoke and outlawed gay marriage, and leftists moaned about discrimination and minority oppression (which even leftists know minorities are favored). Why can't the people speak their collective mind in a democratic government without left radicals having heartburn?

Steven
_________________
Your just jealous cause
The little green men
Don't talk to you.

 

Re: Democratic heartburn

Your opinion is well taken. However I am not a leftist. I'm more of a conserative, but I don't support Bush.

 

Why in the hell should I myself be suckered into an angry argument with people who were my friends up until now, just for a troll's amusement?

The left-wing wants me to hate this. The right-wing wants me to hate that. Everyone wants me to hate something.

But I'm just not in any mood to spend a beautiful Saturday afternoon all twisted and bitter.

Sorry haters. Maybe tomorrow.

 

Perhaps I'm guilty to a certain extent of trolling. I admit I was trolling for discussion of the gay marriage amendment among an educated audience.

But...

I didn't come here to twist anyone into a hateful, angry argument, nor would I get any amusement from such a spectacle. I am a distance learner working on a BA in Sociology from Fort Hays State University (one semester left.) I've enjoyed reading this board and thought I'd try to initiate a conversation about a topic that interests me.

I'm not a hater, a leftist, a rightist, a democrat or a republican. And I am not a troll.

I believe the proposed amendment is absurd. I proposed an equally absurd amendment for comparative purposes. If someone cannot disagree with me without calling me a leftist or a troll, or becoming twisted and bitter - that reflects more on them than me.

 

When you open one of your first posts to a board populated by a fairly large number of social conservatives and an even larger number of Republicans by describing the current president as a "pinhead," you are trolling.

Please don't feed the goats.

 

I didn't call him a pinhead, but pinhead is as pinhead does.

 

Say, folks, there actually is an interesting issue here, at least for legal scholars. Suppose a constitutional amendment did something radically new, maybe seriously contradicted years of legal and social development. Example: Suppose we passed an amendment disestablishing the States of Texas and California and selling them to Mexico for ten dollars and other valuable consideration.

Would such an amendment actually BE the law? Or is there "super-constitutional" law out there against which even our constitutional enactments must be judged?

(I, personally, would vote in favor of the Texas thing...) (grin)

 

Vewy twicky qwestion. Kind of a reverse argument of that used by the Southern states when they seceded - once you join you can't leave.

I agree with you about the "Texas thing". Don't have to worry about California though, we'll fall into the Pacific Ocean when the big quake comes so we're not worth much.

DCV: Not all of us here are social conservatives, but most of us have been through the flame wars on this Board and are tired of the provocateurs - right or left.

 

I'm not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV.

But my answer would be that if the Constitutional amendment were legally enacted according to all the proper procedures, it would formally be the law.

I can imagine an amendment that declared all people with incorrect political views, skin color, social class, national origin, religion or whatever to be subhumans and mandated their orderly disposal in death camps.

There's no absolute guarantee that a Constitutional amendment will be moral or good as defined either by the general public or by some subset of it.

If there is an unwritten "super-Constitution" out there, then I guess it's the will of the governed. If the written Constitution deviates too far from the popular will, the Declaration of Independence may take precedence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

Dear Bill....who DO you play on TV?

 

BillDayson:

That is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make. Suppose we repealed the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments thus allowing any state to re establish slavery.

Would it be the law? It was definitely the law before 1867. Is there an "irreversable direction" in legal development?

Another way to think about this: Is the law CREATED by its societies or is it DISCOVERED?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Well, it sure wasn't self evident in the 18th or early 19th centuries, now was it?

 

Jon Porter: goats???

I'm with Bill Dayson on this. Banter is one thing, but...

This envenomed election season is bad for the country (yeah, I know they started it, but so what?).

Somehow, I don't think that anybody ever decided to vote for someone else because their original choice was called disparaging names.

 

Man... am I ever glad I'm too busy to jump in on this one.

 

Which part?