Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suddenly the far left becomes advocates of the 10th amendment after attacking things like the MT firearms freedom law, state opposition to national healthcare, etc.
And suddenly the far right becomes an enemy of the 10th Amendment.
ooh please.. they are indeed a special interst group, just like african americans are.
What the hell does the bible have to do with it, unless you were just looking for a way of posting your hate against another special interest group, those who read the bible..
Ahh, I see you indeed edited your posting, to prove my point.. Well done..
You don't have a point. You are just ranting off every single time you post something and you're spreading hate. I can't blame you though. You're clearly a bible reader. It's all blurry up there now. Unless you have another explanation for it.
You don't have a point. You are just ranting off every single time you post something and you're spreading hate. I can't clams you though. You're clearly a bible reader. It's all blurry up there now.
Interesting how so many of them are obsessed with homosexuality, isn't it? One would think that they wouldn't want to talk so much about a subject that supposedly disgusts them.
The Constitution says nothing about sexual orientation for one thing. Second thing, I was not in any way advocating for a federal marriage amendment. I firmly believe the feds should stay out of it. It's a state issue, as the states are the ones that issue the marriage licenses.
The DOMA mentioned above is unconstitutional, I was merely stating that the proper way to pass something like that is a constitutional amendment. The merits of an amendment are a different topic.
Personally, I think wanting to marry is like wanting to go to prison. To do either is to surrender your sovereignty as an individual.
Your point is well taken. To those who are strict construct of the Const, it doesn't mention anything about weapons of mass destruction either. does that mean that thye should not be allowed? The Const does not mention a lot of things. Strict constr is an irrational way of interpreting the Law.
Your point is well taken. To those who are strict construct of the Const, it doesn't mention anything about weapons of mass destruction either. does that mean that thye should not be allowed? The Const does not mention a lot of things. Strict constr is an irrational way of interpreting the Law.
No, it's the only way of interpreting it in order to prevent tyranny. Once you create a precedent that the government may disobey the Constitution, there is no longer any control over the government. If you wish to change something pass an amendment.
Your point is well taken. To those who are strict construct of the Const, it doesn't mention anything about weapons of mass destruction either. does that mean that thye should not be allowed? The Const does not mention a lot of things. Strict constr is an irrational way of interpreting the Law.
That the constitution says nothing about a matter just means it is not for the federal government to deal with it.
I'm not sure how WMD's tie into the topic. If you're asking about Iraq, I was, and always have been against the idea of the United States playing world cop. The constitution, however, does give congress the power to declare war, unfortunately it was mum on the conditions over which they can exercise that power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.