Others are pushing for the laws of the United Nations to over rule the Constitution.Exactly who are these people, these "others"?Diplomats to the United Nations from manyCountries believe that the United Nations should be the over ruling government for all Countries and national constitutions should be secondary to the United Nations rule.Are you hearing this in the neighbourhood? Does this message come to you while wearing a tin foil hat. This has been widely reported throughout the internet. Have you ever heard of the UN program Agenda 21?I know that there is a republican congressman demanding that all muslims be deported (even the ones who are born here, or are legal citizens). Is that constitutional? Deportation ofnatural borncitizens is illegal. Many naturalized citizens have had their citizenship revoked and were deported for many different reasons. This is rare but the person was always afforded their Constitutional rights and their citizenship was revoked only after due process.The constitution has been constantly amended since it was created. Yes, 27 times but the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment so in reality there have been 25 amendments to the original document. The first 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights and many signers of the original document would not have signed unless they were first promised the Bill of Rights would be acted upon as a first order of business.Did the civil rights act offend you? No, the Civil Rights Act just spelled out what was already in the Constitution. Unfortunately some people refused to believewhat the Constitution said and they needed extra incentive. Remember the Civil Rights Act was first enforced by a Republican President using US Armed Forces, with bayonets drawn.Are there citizens that you believe that should not be included or covered by your constitution? First it is not my constitution; it is the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence lays the groundwork for the Constitution. It states that all men, (women included), are created equal and they have certain unalienable rights. The Constitution is the document that guarantees these rights. Freedom of speech? Yes, everyone has freedom of speech but with certain limitations. The SCOTUS has stated that just because you have free speech does not give you the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.Religion? Religion is a case of one man's freedom ends at another person's nose. In other words, just because you want to exercise your rights does not give you the right to impose your beliefs upon an unwilling recipient. A good example for us if we wanted to establishThe Church of Nudism. It would be fine for all of us to join and participate, but we could not drag people off the street, baptize them by stripping them naked and threaten them with bodily harm if they left. We would probably be violating the textiles' rights if we held our services outdoors in full view of the general public.Please expand.The one "Right" that has not been fully enumerated and iteventually will be coming before the Supreme Court in the future is the Right of the unborn to life. Roe v Wade only dealt with the rights of the mother. Some time it will be tested if the unborn does indeed have rights.
Well that is odd Desert because Romney said today that there will be no abortion legislation in his term. What could he have meant? When a couple of weeks ago he said that if legislation came to his desk banning abortion he would sign it. Which is it?
The part of your speech that I associated with a tin foil hat was the suggestion the Sharia Law would become the law of the land. You can't possibly believe that inanity.
And you would have to be truly naive that the U.S. always has the purest intentions when invading a country or messing with their domestic affairs. Do you know how many brutal military dictatorships the U.S. has installed or supported? In the seventies, the Nixon administration and the CIA overthrew a democratically elected president in Chile and installed a dictator that murdered thousands of people. Was that for the good of the people?
And I always wonder why when so many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis there were no questions or talk of war against Saudi Arabia. Bush made sure that the only plane allowed out was full of the relatives and associates of Bin Laden. Don't you think that they should have been questioned. But you see the oil deals in place make Saudi Arabia too important to the U.S. Human rights abuses go on every day in Saudi Arabia. But that is never condemned or criticized by the U.S. Too busy playing bait and switch with the middle east. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Well that is odd Desert because Romney said today that there will be no abortion legislation in his term. What could he have meant? When a couple of weeks ago he said that if legislation came to his desk banning abortion he would sign it. Which is it?The part of your speech that I associated with a tin foil hat was the suggestion the Sharia Law would become the law of the land. You can't possibly believe that inanity.
Odd. Gonna have to look at that one....He doesn't control any legislation while going through the Senate and House, but he could veto at his desk, so he couldn't stop it from happening (which is NOT in his power to do). But to sign it?...
Here's a list of the dictators that the U.S. has supported, brought to you buy military veterans for Justice. It's 8 pages long.
https://www.military-veterans-for-justice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=13
And you would have to be truly naive that the U.S. always has the purest intentions when invading a country or messing with their domestic affairs. Do you know how many brutal military dictatorships the U.S. has installed or supported? In the seventies, the Nixon administration and the CIA overthrew a democratically elected president in Chile and installed a dictator that murdered thousands of people. Was that for the good of the people?And I always wonder why when so many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis there were no questions or talk of war against Saudi Arabia. Bush made sure that the only plane allowed out was full of the relatives and associates of Bin Laden. Don't you think that they should have been questioned. But you see the oil deals in place make Saudi Arabia too important to the U.S. Human rights abuses go on every day in Saudi Arabia. But that is never condemned or criticized by the U.S. Too busy playing bait and switch with the middle east. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Truth is that the US govt has in the past manipulated foreign govts, and they continue to do so. These things are well documented. Funny you should mention Saudi Arabia. I've heard of things going on over there, especially by the police. Not too sure at this point about King Abdullah and the rest of the al Sauds.
Not a great record of supporting democracy.
Nah...not democracy. We aren't even a democracy, anyways. We're a republic. Our will is carried out through elected representatives. Democracy would infer majority rule, which isn't the case. Some may claim democracy through election of our leaders, but not the case. It is possible for a candidate to get 99% of the popular vote, but fail to get electoral votes, which are what matter in the end. Usually dictatorships (far from democracy), or at the very least a govt that seems to give the illusion of choice to the People.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/selects.html
A little light reading:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",
"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!