|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
October 5th, 2015, 02:52 PM | #11 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,119
Thanks: 16,786
Thanked 22,140 Times in 2,127 Posts
|
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Nobody1 For This Useful Post: |
October 5th, 2015, 09:12 PM | #12 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,057
Thanks: 136
Thanked 10,475 Times in 1,247 Posts
|
I don't see anything in the US Constitution that is outdated or that needs to be changed. That's the beauty of the document. It was written in a brilliantly abstract fashion so that would be relevant as society and culture changed
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to LadyLuck For This Useful Post: |
October 5th, 2015, 10:16 PM | #13 |
Banned!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: the south US near the west from Chicagoland born in the USA,just like the song says!
Posts: 3,719
Thanks: 13,008
Thanked 24,480 Times in 3,630 Posts
|
It is so outdated that many laws, at least IMO must be modernized.After all,how could founding fathers have any idea of what could happen here when they made the laws, 200+ years ago?They were so errant ,even brilliant men like Jefferson, stated there was no way the boarders, from his correct envisioning of the US spanning from Atlantic coast to Pacific,could take less than 40 generations, to inhabit!Talk about being wrong!Come on now these guys were men, not gods, they could have no idea, as we will not, about the way things will be 200 years into the future.
Lets take on just the 14th amendment, you think any of the people involved with that, in 1868, envisioned women streaming across our boaders from Mexico, by the millions,unimpeded just to give birth to a baby here,so they could stay here because their child, born of them, illegal invaders, would be a citizen, by interpretation of that archaic interpretation, of that outdated law?An anchor baby,was that what the ratifiers could remotely envision?Or like we have here & what Canada recently changed their definition of ,a person born in their country,by Asian women,who were not Canadian citizens but those of China & other Asian nations, European ,whatever, hopping on jet planes 8+ months pregnant ,just to give birth to children on Canadian soil & proclaim their child was a Canadian citizen & they had the right to stay in Canada by that virtue.No they changed that law & so should we go back & either amend the archaic mindsets of the 18th & 19th century law makers,who's laws now are severely out of date with current implications. Last edited by savage560; October 5th, 2015 at 10:46 PM.. |
October 6th, 2015, 02:19 AM | #14 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The 513
Posts: 1,825
Thanks: 16,644
Thanked 15,794 Times in 1,755 Posts
|
I am going to take the chance that this is a semi-serious thread, from the first few posts about veganism vs. bear meat, to talk about immigration and territorial expansion.
I'd like to see the Constitution modified to address space exploration (like the Corps of Discovery in Jefferson's era, if we ever colonize the Moon or Mars) and also age discrimination. I also think that polygamy and gay marriage should be legal, as long as there is no spousal abuse. |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AmateurEmale For This Useful Post: |
October 6th, 2015, 04:39 AM | #15 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lompoc, California USA
Posts: 1,825
Thanks: 28,222
Thanked 23,543 Times in 1,832 Posts
|
Bear Burgers?
I have eaten buffalo (bison) burgers and turkey burgers but bear burgers? I am not so sure about that
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Faceman675 For This Useful Post: |
October 6th, 2015, 05:02 AM | #16 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lompoc, California USA
Posts: 1,825
Thanks: 28,222
Thanked 23,543 Times in 1,832 Posts
|
Quote:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Many conservatives will argue that Sec 5 gives congress the authority to change birth right citizenship. Should we elect a republican president and keep control of both houses of congress there is a good chance that SCOTUS will get the chance to rule on it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Faceman675 For This Useful Post: |
October 6th, 2015, 05:32 AM | #17 | |
the thrill of it all
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Depths of Debauchery
Posts: 11,189
Thanks: 159,930
Thanked 213,223 Times in 11,239 Posts
|
Quote:
The official line is: the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to "make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them." No mention of anchor babies, or anything to do with illegals. In fact, as you may surmise, the purpose of this was to protect, among others, native Americans. Not so. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who - as you may have surmised by his name - was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. I really hate revisionist history.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Decadence For This Useful Post: |
October 6th, 2015, 10:22 AM | #18 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Land of the free within reasonable limitations
Posts: 10,900
Thanks: 50,519
Thanked 91,155 Times in 10,747 Posts
|
So how would you interpret section 1 of the 14th Amendment in terms of how it should apply to anchor babies?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Rogerbh For This Useful Post: |
October 6th, 2015, 12:45 PM | #19 |
supermoderateur
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 24,366
Thanks: 157,817
Thanked 321,233 Times in 24,281 Posts
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to cicciobuki For This Useful Post: |
October 6th, 2015, 10:34 PM | #20 | ||
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Outskirts of Goosebump City, near the BusbyBerkeleyBakery
Posts: 777
Thanks: 4,712
Thanked 8,843 Times in 754 Posts
|
Quote:
But it's not hard at all to imagine a different political/social climate in which some familiar legal tropes are used to create an exception. The most important factor being the element of "subterfuge", people not going about "normal" business but arranging everything to take advantage of a provision or exception in a way not envisioned. I can see it now: those words were "never intended" to allow "aliens" to "subvert" their purpose by immigrating "merely" or even "temporarily" to give birth. "What the authors never foresaw or imagined cannot be allowed." [That is, if public opinion is outraged by the result.] Does anyone doubt the fate of the 2nd Amendment is about politics and culture? The conflict between plain language vs intent goes on all the time, liberals and conservatives switching their opportunistic "philosophies" case by case. Here is a conservative proposal to ditch antiquated words to deal with modern realities. Liberals horrified. Typically the shoe is on the other foot. Quote:
But, they can mean whatever we want.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Please do PM me on any dead links, loading fails, or other issues with host. It will be fixed! |
||
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ConstantOgler For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|