Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum

Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Discussion & Talk Forum > General Discussion & News

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Meet Our Girls Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
General Discussion & News Want to speak your mind about something ... do it here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2015, 02:52 PM   #11
Nobody1
Veteran Member
 
Nobody1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,359
Thanks: 12,664
Thanked 12,920 Times in 1,364 Posts
Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+Nobody1 50000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Estreeter View Post
No, the only bears here are in zoo's or a circus maybe. But if I could, I'd eat it's arms
First, you need the right to arm bears.

Might be a pretty reasonable idea.
Nobody1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Nobody1 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2015, 09:12 PM   #12
LadyLuck
Senior Member
 
LadyLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 441
Thanks: 706
Thanked 4,165 Times in 439 Posts
LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+LadyLuck 10000+
Default

I don't see anything in the US Constitution that is outdated or that needs to be changed.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
__________________
"Eric Stratton, rush chairman. Damn glad to meet you."
LadyLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to LadyLuck For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2015, 10:16 PM   #13
savage560
Banned!
 
savage560's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: the south US near the west from Chicagoland born in the USA,just like the song says!
Posts: 3,739
Thanks: 13,010
Thanked 24,480 Times in 3,630 Posts
savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+
Default

It is so outdated that many laws, at least IMO must be modernized.After all,how could founding fathers have any idea of what could happen here when they made the laws, 200+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; 10-05-2015 at 10:46 PM..
savage560 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 02:19 AM   #14
AmateurEmale
Vintage Member
 
AmateurEmale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The 513
Posts: 1,564
Thanks: 11,437
Thanked 11,331 Times in 1,492 Posts
AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+AmateurEmale 50000+
Default

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.
AmateurEmale is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to AmateurEmale For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2015, 04:39 AM   #15
Faceman675
Vintage Member
 
Faceman675's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lompoc, California USA
Posts: 1,607
Thanks: 11,856
Thanked 16,979 Times in 1,605 Posts
Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+
Default Bear Burgers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Estreeter View Post
Make sure that

"The right too bear hamburgers" is an amendment
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.
Faceman675 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Faceman675 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2015, 05:02 AM   #16
Faceman675
Vintage Member
 
Faceman675's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lompoc, California USA
Posts: 1,607
Thanks: 11,856
Thanked 16,979 Times in 1,605 Posts
Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+Faceman675 50000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by savage560 View Post
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.
The 14th is not the best choice for an example:
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.
Faceman675 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Faceman675 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2015, 05:32 AM   #17
Decadence
the thrill of it all
 
Decadence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Depths of Debauchery
Posts: 4,337
Thanks: 77,377
Thanked 89,735 Times in 4,354 Posts
Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+Decadence 350000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by savage560 View Post

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,
The 14th amendment is interesting in that it doesn't cover what people think it does.

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.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Decadence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 10:22 AM   #18
Rogerbh
Vintage Member
 
Rogerbh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Land of the free within reasonable limitations
Posts: 2,306
Thanks: 16,333
Thanked 24,232 Times in 2,264 Posts
Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+Rogerbh 100000+
Default

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.
Rogerbh is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Rogerbh For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2015, 12:45 PM   #19
cicciobuki
Vintage Member
 
cicciobuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,673
Thanks: 43,285
Thanked 29,349 Times in 3,679 Posts
cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+cicciobuki 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurEmale View Post
I also think that polygamy and gay marriage should be legal, as long as there is no spousal abuse.
Spousal abuse in polygamy can be alot of work
cicciobuki is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to cicciobuki For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2015, 10:34 PM   #20
ConstantOgler
Senior Member
 
ConstantOgler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Outskirts of Goosebump City, near the BusbyBerkeleyBakery
Posts: 555
Thanks: 3,396
Thanked 4,498 Times in 572 Posts
ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+ConstantOgler 10000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerbh View Post
So how would you interpret section 1 of the 14th Amendment in terms of how it should apply to anchor babies?
The law is almost infinitely malleable if the necessary political and cultural pressure is brought to bear. The plain, unqualified first 20 words would seem to put citizenship of anchor babies beyond dispute. And if one cannot take such plain words at face value, where the eff are we?

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:
Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
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
There is nothing abstract about the first 20 words of the 14th Amendment. Or the 2nd.

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!
ConstantOgler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ConstantOgler For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 PM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.