Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
The Point of No Return
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Aug 5, 2022 13:40:52   #
Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado
 
thom w wrote:
You are claiming that the English live under anarchy? I'm guessing they would find that funny. Very false and very funny.


Is there some problem you have understanding the english language?

The claim was NEVER MADE that those in England “live under anarchy” as you stated.

What I stated, is that they have NO CONSTITUTION.

And they DO NOT!

SOURCE: https://about-britain.com/institutions/constitution.htm#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does

“The UK has no written constitution. Nor does England have a constitution, neither written nor formulated. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries of the world that does not have a written constitution: it just has what is known as an "uncodified constitution".”

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 13:43:08   #
jcboy3
 
Penny MG wrote:
Dude, you have one sick attitude. The majority of republicans are good hearted loving people. Maybe if you quit insulting them on a daily basis, they would look at people like you in a different way.


Maybe if they quit insulting me on a daily basis?

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 17:49:04   #
Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado
 
thom w wrote:
So, you love the second amendment, but you would be willing to dump it in exchange for, getting to dump the first amendment? Pardon me if next time you claim to be for freedom I puke.


You should go back and re-read what I had written about this prior to arguing in such an unimaginably silly manner.

Far be it for me to attempt to keep you from puking.
I certainly would not choose to interfere or have anything to do with the, Ah, “expression” of your bodily functions. Nor be associated with your mental incapacity either.


What I stated was that for a consideration of “dumping” the protections of the Second Amendment—as posited by several socialistic/liberal types—a COMPROMISE should be made. A Quid-pro-quo, if you will. Another Amendment should ALSO be surrendered; what better than the First Amendment. Start at the beginning, right?

Remember: YOU were the one claiming the Constitution is in need of a re-do or rewrite.

And I described the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDED method for doing so.

— An authorized (and Constitutionally valid) method.

— Completely legal.

— Done before.



All you have to do is get an amendment proposed, recognized, then approved and ratified by the required number of states. All within the required time frame.

“A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of the current 50 States).”
SOURCE: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution#:~:text=A%20proposed%20amendment%20becomes%20part,(38%20of%2050%20States).

At the present time it is unlikely that 3/4 of the “United” States could (or would) agree to ANYTHING—let alone any proposed rewrite of the Constitution.

Oh, it might be possible to garner support from some of the far-west (CA, HI, OR, WA) and some Eastern states (NY, NJ, MA, DE, MD, CT, NH, DC, RI, and maybe some others) and perhaps some Northeastern or mideastern states (IL, OH, IA, IN, WI, MI) Maybe even CO and NM.
Which comes up to 21 — far short of the required 38 needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

It would be nearly impossible to get an additional 17 states.

So: NO REDO FOR YOU

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2022 20:18:59   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Well said.
cwp3420 wrote:
Written by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell | Aug 3, 2022

This is an e******n year. But the issues this year are not about Democrats and Republicans. The big issue is whether this nation has degenerated to a point of no return — a point where we risk destroying ourselves, before our enemies can destroy us.

If there is one moment that symbolized our degeneration, it was when an enraged mob gathered in front of the Supreme Court and a leader of the United States Senate, Charles Schumer, shouted threats against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying “You won’t know what hit you!”

There have always been irresponsible demagogues. But there was once a time when anyone who shouted threats to a Supreme Court Justice would see the end of his own political career, and could not show his face in decent society again.

You either believe in laws or you believe in mob rule. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the law or agree with the mob on some particular issue. If threats of violence against judges — and publishing where a judge’s children go to school — is the way to settle issues, then there is not much point in having e******ns or laws.

There is also not much point in expecting to have freedom. Threats and violence were the way the N**is came to power in Germany. Freedom is not free. If you can’t be bothered to v**e against storm-trooper tactics — regardless of who engages in them, or over what issue — then you can forfeit your freedom.

Worse yet, you can forfeit the freedom of generations not yet born.

Some people seem to think that the Supreme Court has banned a******ns. It has done nothing of the sort.

The Supreme Court has in fact done something very different, something long overdue and potentially historic. It has said that their own court had no business making policy decisions which nothing in the Constitution gave them the authority to make.

Get out a copy of the Constitution — and see if you can find anything in there that says the federal government is authorized to make laws about a******n.

Check out the 10th Amendment, which says that the federal government is limited to the specific powers it was granted, with all other powers going to the states or to the people.

Why do we elect legislators to do what the v**ers want done, if unelected judges are going to make up laws on their own, instead of applying the laws that elected officials passed?

This is part of a very long struggle that has been going on for more than 100 years. Back in the early 20th century, Progressives like President Woodrow Wilson decided that the Constitution put too many limits on the powers they wanted to use.

Claiming that it was nearly impossible to amend the Constitution, Progressives advocated that judges “interpret” the Constitutional limits out of the way.

This was just the first in a long series of sophistries.

In reality, the Constitution was amended 4 times in 8 years — from 1913 through 1920 — during the heyday of the Progressive era.

When the people wanted the Constitution amended, it was amended. When the elites wanted the Constitution amended, but the people did not, that is called democracy.

Another great sophistry was using the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce to call all sorts of other things interstate commerce. In 1995, elites were shocked when the Supreme Court ruled — 5 to 4— that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce.

States had a right to ban carrying a gun near a school, and most of them did. But the federal government had no such authority. Nor did the Constitution give the federal government the right to make laws about a******n, one way or the other.

What both state and federal laws do have the right to stop is threats against judges and their families.

This is not a partisan issue. The Republican governor of Virginia is providing protection to Supreme Court Justices who live in that state. But the Republican governor of Maryland seems to think that harassing judges and their families is no big deal.

V**ers need to find out who is for or against mob rule, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We are not going to be a free or decent society otherwise.
Written by Thomas Sowell br br Thomas Sowell | Au... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.