Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
You must not have seen many of my posts.
Quran Burning in Florida.
- Thread starter Hazardous
- Start date
You must not have seen many of my posts.
I do a "Word Up" at school all the time. Even have the hand signs to go with it. The kids all think it's cool.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
That sounds hillarious, I wish you were my gym teacher.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
What subject do you teach?
Well I could use an Educated point of view in this thread since you missed out on this one..
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=131633
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=131633
I took this side in the matter.
The Living Breathing Document creates a slippery slope. If what is said in the constitution can Constantly be interpreted to mean certain things and can be found to be outdated in its views so that it should be ignored in terms of policy then it leads to a slipper slope which leads to rights being taken away.
The reason the Declaration of Independence states our rights are God given is to say that they are not given by the state, because if they state believes the rights can be given by them they also believe that they can take them away.
The living breathing Document leads to rulings that abridge the rights of the United States Citizens. It has lead to saying people cant own arms, and it has lead to things such as this where some politicians were calling to throw a man in jail for simply burning a fucking book because "safety supersedes the constitution".
If we read "Congress shall make no law" and say "Well now a days its different" it leads to eventually taking away those god given rights we hold sacred.
I know what Im saying can indeed be a the worst case scenario, but its always best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best in situations like these.
Everyone should. I'm great. But I don't teach kids your age.
Umm...I teach a class called Wellness to 5-8 grade, where I teach them lifetime exercise habits and activities. I also teach a computer class to 4th graders, and I work as an assistant in the IT department.
I saw it, but only care to post spam.
"How can you disprove something whose basis is founded only upon belief?"
That's all I'd have to say.
People get way to uptight about religious artifacts. The fact of the matter is, the cross I buy at the dollar store is not sacred, it was a mass produced piece of faux wood.
Not a big deal.
And the Strict Constructionist point of view would imply the living conditions of today are equal to the conditions of 1792, which is simply asinine, as NO ONE could foresee the growth of technology, nor the industrialization that has occurred. Hell, if we took a strict approach to the Constitution, we would have no professional army, and the Air Force would not exist.
Both have their pros and cons.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing in our country, so there's no reason to mention it.
This is wrong. The preamble of the Constitution itself has a clause in which it states the Constitution was created, in part, to insure domestic tranquility.
Thus, even by the Constitution, the government has the right to take arms away from those it deems to be dangerous to the security and stability of our country.
First of all, the Constitution says nothing about God given rights, so not sure why you're bringing that up.
Second of all, Congress is accountable to the people. If the people think they are being screwed, they have the right to vote against their elected officials. At the end of the day, America is still, in limited fashion, a democracy.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Elementary was great.
PE class was the best. That was where you showed how much of a badass you were. Used to school some mothafuckers in Knockout.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
I failed PE once. Forgot my gym clothes more than 5 times.
This argument has no bearing on the basic inalienable rights of the people such as to bear arms, and speak and express themselves freely, have a fair trial, and not have their rights seized without proper cause or reimbursement.
Also there is a section of the constitution which specifically sates the powers of the federal government, and then it states in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that other than those powers all others are left up to the individual states and peoples to decide.
As does every argument.
Yes there is, as it mentions the nature of our rights in this country, and mentions that rather than the state giving its people rights the people receive their rights from "god". In other words state can not give to or take away the rights of its people.
Yes, but not that impedes upon the "inalienable" rights of people. And one of the reasons that we were given the second amendment in the first place was for foreign and domestic security. To, as Jefferson said "Protect themselves from an overbearing government which attempts to come into their homes".
Thus, even by the Constitution, the government has the right to take arms away from those it deems to be dangerous to the security and stability of our country.
Because its in the Declaration of Independence. Its what the founders believed in and they specifically stated this and stated that they were "inalienable" so as not to be taken away by the government.
Yes they do, I didnt argue this.
America is a Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders made it a Republic because they knew that the people could be swayed and tricked into voting for something that wasnt in their best nature. Thus they made it so people would elect representatives to speak for them, I.E a Republic.
Those are not inalienable rights, those were Amendments, additions to the original Constitution (so to speak). We, the people, have granted ourselves those rights, but with the way our government is set up, anything can be changed.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment, despite what our Conservative Supreme Court might say, does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, it grants the right to bear arms to those who are part of a well-trained militia. It's right there in black and white.
But the most important item you need to recognize is you cannot decide which parts of the Constitution you wish to strictly observe, and which you wish to observe as a living document. Because, in theory, every article and clause of the Constitution is equally important as every other.
The states don't provide for our national professional army, our federal government does, which is not part of the Constitution.
Again, you can't pick and choose which you wish observe strictly and which you wish to observe as living document.
No, the Declaration of Independence has ZERO legal bearing in our country. NONE. Hell, it wasn't even of legal bearing in the Articles of Confederation, if I'm not mistaken. Aside from officially notifying England we were no longer going to recognize their rule, the Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing.
And thus, has no place in a conversation regarding a document which outlines our very way of government.
False.
This forum has already seen this argument a couple of different times, and I've already demolished the whole "everyone has the right to a gun" argument. It's somewhere in a thread about the Supreme Court's decision on the D.C. gun law.
The Declaration of Independence was written, presumably, by one man in 1776. You might, possibly, argue the Articles of Confederation were created with that notion in mind, but the Constitution was created in response to the failure the Articles turned out to be.
The Declaration of Independence was an article written by one man 15 years before our Constitution was created and ratified by the states. The Declaration of Independence carries NO legal standing in our country. For example, when the Southern states seceded from the country, they had no legal right to do so, according to our Constitution, despite what was said in the Declaration of Independence.
Then you cannot say the will and rights of the people can taken away without their consent, which pretty much denies your entire argument.
Actually, it's a representative democracy (or as we call it, a democratic republic), which is a combination of both a republic and democracy. Yes, we have officials which represent our interests, but those officials only gain their position based upon the votes of EVERYONE in society. Those officials are pressured into voting the way of the will of the people, and unlike other republics, EVERYONE has a chance to decide who represents them. And because the officials jobs depend upon doing the will of the people they represent, that ensures a kind of democracy.
If you wanted to get technical.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
And he said he only wanted to post spam.
Remind me never to get on Sly's bad side again..
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Don't say dumb shit. That usually helps.
It states congress shall make no law. It is saying that our rights are already there, and con not be taken by the government, or given. Obviously done to ensure they didnt become an oppressor as the one they had just broken away from had been.
Second Amendment said:
It states that we can both have a militia AND the people can bear arms. Furthermore Jefferson specifically spoke on the matter
Thomas Jefferson said:
and
Thomas Jefferson said:
The founders made it clear it was for both individual AND Military security.
Whats your point in this? Ive already explained that the constitution states all powers given to the federal government and all powers outside of it are given to the states and peoples.
It can also be argued that its not necessary. Not an army in general, but many have made persuasive arguments for a privatized military commanded by the President, as stated under the constitution, and held responsible by the people, just like any other business.
Im not picking and choosing though, thats the thing.
No but it holds president and states the way in which the Founders wanted rights to be viewed as in this nation, and it states the way in which they viewed some things should be interpreted as. Im not stating it supersedes the
Constitution but that it really goes hand in hand with it.
I was using it to explain how the founders viewed individual rights, and that they do not come from government, but from "god" which in essence means they come from wherever the people believe they do, and government cant abridge them.
Not according to the people that wrote the thing.
And I demolished your demolishing of it, by showing you what Thomas Jefferson, the man whom helped author it thought about it and clarified about it. I think he knew better about this than you do.
It helps in the clarification process however.
Yes as a matter of fact I can. Its called the Supreme Court. If people can not pass something in the congress they go to the supreme court via lawsuits and simple have something changed to their liking. It happens all the time.
Also the congress is held accountable, every election cycle. The people are powerless to do anything about it untile they are able to keep them in or vote them out.
Relatively the same thing, however you were still wrong, as its not a "Democracy" in either case.
Some are directly appointed by the president without voters, some are voted on by the congress but thats it. The president also has Tsars whom are not approved by anyone and report only to him, meaning they are not bound by the constitution.
I did, because you said "Democracy".
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Wrong. The originalist point of view argues that Supreme Court justices can only decide cases according to what's in the Constitution. What follows from this is that people should look to Congress or state legislatures to change the Constitution rather than having people on the bench read things into it that are not there.
Platypus Palsy
Guest
Which can be repealed with another amendment.
Like I said, we reserve those rights for ourselves, but at any time, we can also do away with those rights. Thus, they are not inalienable, they are legal.
It does? Where is the word "and" in there? I see you added it, but I'll be damned if I see it in the 2nd Amendment.
I might care if Jefferson was even in the country when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was being created. But since he wasn't, I really don't.
The fact of the matter is the 2nd Amendment was never intended to give you the right to own a semi-automatic firearm. Those things didn't even exist at the time, which only brings me back to my original point about how viewing the Constitution in only a strict constructionist point of view is very limiting.
Don't tell me the founders intended for a coke dealer to own and use a 9mm pistol, because it's just not true.
Did you not read what I just said?
My point is if you take only a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, many things, like an Air Force (which is not run by the states) would not exist. There HAS to be flexibility in the Constitution to adapt to current and modern times.
That's my point. I've made it three times now, I would have hoped you would get it by now.
First of all, there are many things wrong with that, but we're not going to go there.
What you just said doesn't change my point is that today's times are far different than they were in 1787 (I think I was saying 1792 earlier..not sure why) when the Constitution was created, and the founders could not possibly have envisioned the changes in culture and society. The Air Force is merely an example of something not dictated in the Constitution, but we rely on for our defense.
I was speaking philosophically.
But, since it has no legal bearing, it really doesn't belong in the discussion.
Why do you struggle with this very simple concept? I enjoy debating, but not when people get sidetracked in an attempt to justify a minor point they are wrong about.
And again, Thomas Jefferson wasn't fucking there, so I don't care.
I mean, your entire argument has been based on a word that doesn't exist in the 2nd Amendment, and the opinion of a man who was in France (I believe) at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created.
You should probably try again.
There is so much wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin, other than to tell you to read a book on our government.
Are you really trying to say that one man in Congress who can't get an Amendment ratified, can file a lawsuit, take it to the Supreme Court, and get the Supreme Court to pass an Amendment which repeals the civil rights expressed in the first 10 Amendments?
Really? Is THAT the road you're going down? Because I pegged you as being more intelligent than that, and this is just miserable.
Which is every two years, which is MORE than enough time to vote out someone who is doing wrong. Not to mention, not Congressman who wants to keep his job will work to pass an Amendment which will deprive people of their rights, and so Congress is held in check by the people.
Well sure it is. The people vote to decide who to give the power of government to, in this case, their representative.
That's textbook democracy. Now, the people don't create the laws and regulations themselves, but it's still democracy. It's a representative democracy.
Which is basically the antithesis of a Republic, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
I said "in limited fashion", and I was correct.
Just because the people don't vote on issues themselves, doesn't mean it's not a form of democracy. The fact that all people have the privilege to vote on their elected officials, and the majority of the votes determines who the elected official is (with the exception of the President, as we saw in 2000), is democracy in its purest form.
I know exactly what it means tdigle, I've had hours worth of debate, on two separate occasions, with my new lawyer cousin over it. However, I was merely taking the quick and easy route, because in the end, what I said is, in essence, true.
You need to look at the bigger picture on this one.
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I don't have any doubt that you know what it means (you more than likely just pigeonholed the point of view to support you argument
).