"The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal
government and does not stop state governments, local governments and
school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution"
Oh well if the bill SAYS that it doesn't apply...
Amazing level of idiocy.
0
"The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal
government and does not stop state governments, local governments and
school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution"
as we've said on here many times before, politicians, and most other people don't give a garbage about the constitution, it's something to wave around when you can interpret it in your favor and something to ignore when you can't. the constitution may have been a cool thing thing to talk about and a nice achievement many years ago but it means fuckall these days.
0
as we've said on here many times before, politicians, and most other people don't give a garbage about the constitution, it's something to wave around when you can interpret it in your favor and something to ignore when you can't. the constitution may have been a cool thing thing to talk about and a nice achievement many years ago but it means fuckall these days.
as one of the commenters points out, even afghanistan hasn't gone this far.
And how would a commentor of the Huffington Post know, exactly?
Anyway to pretend that these issues of federalism are all settled is to ignore history. For example:
Maryland's Bill of Rights:
Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
=====
Now I guess those dummies who created the MD Constitution, near the time of America's founding, had no concept of "separation of church and state"
Right?
The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
0
as one of the commenters points out, even afghanistan hasn't gone this far.
And how would a commentor of the Huffington Post know, exactly?
Anyway to pretend that these issues of federalism are all settled is to ignore history. For example:
Maryland's Bill of Rights:
Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
=====
Now I guess those dummies who created the MD Constitution, near the time of America's founding, had no concept of "separation of church and state"
Right?
The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
Well, it wasn't until the 1920's that SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment--passed 50 years earlier-- to include state governments being bound by the Bill of Rights.
0
Well, it wasn't until the 1920's that SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment--passed 50 years earlier-- to include state governments being bound by the Bill of Rights.
I love how you are able to make fun of the bible beaters and /or white supremacists that are a core part of the GOP party...
good one canos... there is hope for you yet...
I had a history teacher in college that said that based on logical historical accounts jesus did not look like a skinny pale hippy and that the commonly accept image of jesus by white america is false idol...
Ironic that a religion that is a against false idols actually uses one
He said that being a carpenter and someone that worked he was not skinny and sickly like a AIDS patient.. and was probably much darker being in the sun and if you look at what people in that area and era looked like he probably looked this (and showed a picture of saddam hussein)....
mind you this was in the 1990s fresh off of Bush Sr. and desert storm... but the the point still works today...
0
LOL!
I love how you are able to make fun of the bible beaters and /or white supremacists that are a core part of the GOP party...
good one canos... there is hope for you yet...
I had a history teacher in college that said that based on logical historical accounts jesus did not look like a skinny pale hippy and that the commonly accept image of jesus by white america is false idol...
Ironic that a religion that is a against false idols actually uses one
He said that being a carpenter and someone that worked he was not skinny and sickly like a AIDS patient.. and was probably much darker being in the sun and if you look at what people in that area and era looked like he probably looked this (and showed a picture of saddam hussein)....
mind you this was in the 1990s fresh off of Bush Sr. and desert storm... but the the point still works today...
Obviously this is asinine, but with the level of hate for the constitution mixed with toxic polarization, I would not be surprised if it stands.
The constitution completely forbids this,
but people think that the 4th amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 1st amendment are somehow negotiable, so this doesn't surprise me.
Couldn't agree more.
Nowhere does it say that people can't threaten others with death. I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to approach a child and threaten them with death.
And nowhere does it say that dangerous felons shouldn't be able to buy a gun and carry it to a school.
As well, it doesn't say that police have any right to enter a residence, even in cases of certain death.
There is nothing negotiable about the Constitution.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Obviously this is asinine, but with the level of hate for the constitution mixed with toxic polarization, I would not be surprised if it stands.
The constitution completely forbids this,
but people think that the 4th amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 1st amendment are somehow negotiable, so this doesn't surprise me.
Couldn't agree more.
Nowhere does it say that people can't threaten others with death. I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to approach a child and threaten them with death.
And nowhere does it say that dangerous felons shouldn't be able to buy a gun and carry it to a school.
As well, it doesn't say that police have any right to enter a residence, even in cases of certain death.
There is nothing negotiable about the Constitution.
Any law can be on the books until it is unconstitutionally applied. The law could absolutely pass until someone's rights were infringed or refused, at which time it could be challenged.
This explains why we have current crazy laws on the books. They have not been applied, therefore no one's rights have been impacted.
0
Any law can be on the books until it is unconstitutionally applied. The law could absolutely pass until someone's rights were infringed or refused, at which time it could be challenged.
This explains why we have current crazy laws on the books. They have not been applied, therefore no one's rights have been impacted.
"The religion bill comes as some Republican-led states seek to separate themselves from the federal government, primarily on the issues of guns and Obamacare. This includes a proposal in Mississippi to establish a state board with the power to nullify federal laws."
0
"The religion bill comes as some Republican-led states seek to separate themselves from the federal government, primarily on the issues of guns and Obamacare. This includes a proposal in Mississippi to establish a state board with the power to nullify federal laws."
Tennessee is proposing a bill to reduce welfare benefits by 20% if a child "does not meet satisfactory levels in the subjects of mathematics, reading + the language arts."
Looks like the South is on a roll right now.
0
Tennessee is proposing a bill to reduce welfare benefits by 20% if a child "does not meet satisfactory levels in the subjects of mathematics, reading + the language arts."
Tennessee is proposing a bill to reduce welfare benefits by 20% if a child "does not meet satisfactory levels in the subjects of mathematics, reading + the language arts."
Looks like the South is on a roll right now.
i saw that. i didn't think it was quite crazy enough to post since the bar is so much higher these days. i just filed that in the, rightwingers hate human beings once they are born, particularly kids of poor parents, category.
0
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:
Tennessee is proposing a bill to reduce welfare benefits by 20% if a child "does not meet satisfactory levels in the subjects of mathematics, reading + the language arts."
Looks like the South is on a roll right now.
i saw that. i didn't think it was quite crazy enough to post since the bar is so much higher these days. i just filed that in the, rightwingers hate human beings once they are born, particularly kids of poor parents, category.
i don't know constitutional law. the only part i ever deal with is illegal search and seizures and i live in rightwingland so here that part of the constitution basically means police can do whatever they want, whenever they want for any reason, as long as the cop knows how to write a report. people wipe their behind with the constitution down here for all it's worth. all that matters is who interprets it.
0
i don't know constitutional law. the only part i ever deal with is illegal search and seizures and i live in rightwingland so here that part of the constitution basically means police can do whatever they want, whenever they want for any reason, as long as the cop knows how to write a report. people wipe their behind with the constitution down here for all it's worth. all that matters is who interprets it.
Awful idea, but since welfare is not a legalized right, it becomes an equal protection argument likely defeated by a rational basis (even though there seems no rational basis)
0
Awful idea, but since welfare is not a legalized right, it becomes an equal protection argument likely defeated by a rational basis (even though there seems no rational basis)
i don't know constitutional law. the only part i ever deal with is illegal search and seizures and i live in rightwingland so here that part of the constitution basically means police can do whatever they want, whenever they want for any reason, as long as the cop knows how to write a report. people wipe their behind with the constitution down here for all it's worth. all that matters is who interprets it.
I live in the same place
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't know constitutional law. the only part i ever deal with is illegal search and seizures and i live in rightwingland so here that part of the constitution basically means police can do whatever they want, whenever they want for any reason, as long as the cop knows how to write a report. people wipe their behind with the constitution down here for all it's worth. all that matters is who interprets it.
i don't know constitutional law. the only part i ever deal with is illegal search and seizures and i live in rightwingland so here that part of the constitution basically means police can do whatever they want, whenever they want for any reason, as long as the cop knows how to write a report. people wipe their behind with the constitution down here for all it's worth. all that matters is who interprets it.
The part of the constitution that conservatives like me appreciate is the Bill of Rights. It tells us what the federal government can't do. Not what the federal government can do.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't know constitutional law. the only part i ever deal with is illegal search and seizures and i live in rightwingland so here that part of the constitution basically means police can do whatever they want, whenever they want for any reason, as long as the cop knows how to write a report. people wipe their behind with the constitution down here for all it's worth. all that matters is who interprets it.
The part of the constitution that conservatives like me appreciate is the Bill of Rights. It tells us what the federal government can't do. Not what the federal government can do.
The part of the constitution that conservatives like me appreciate is the Bill of Rights. It tells us what the federal government can't do. Not what the federal government can do.
if you say so
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
The part of the constitution that conservatives like me appreciate is the Bill of Rights. It tells us what the federal government can't do. Not what the federal government can do.
Nowhere does it say that people can't threaten others with death. I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to approach a child and threaten them with death.
And nowhere does it say that dangerous felons shouldn't be able to buy a gun and carry it to a school.
As well, it doesn't say that police have any right to enter a residence, even in cases of certain death.
There is nothing negotiable about the Constitution.
Yup that's what I meant.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Couldn't agree more.
Nowhere does it say that people can't threaten others with death. I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to approach a child and threaten them with death.
And nowhere does it say that dangerous felons shouldn't be able to buy a gun and carry it to a school.
As well, it doesn't say that police have any right to enter a residence, even in cases of certain death.
There is nothing negotiable about the Constitution.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
