Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted March 1, 2004 I am not a "kid". I'm 25 years old and I can confirm that I am English. My nationality does not exclude me from voicing my opinion on topics centered around America. If something is written in the US constitution, which ever amendement it is (and why on earth did it have to be amended, doesn't that void the initial constitution?!) then it should be adherd to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBigSwigg 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2004 If something is written in the US constitution, which ever amendement it is (and why on earth did it have to be amended, doesn't that void the initial constitution?!) then it should be adherd to. Amending is not voiding, its enhancing the rights of the government as decided by the people Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2004 Well, I watch C-Span's airing of British Parliment every now and then (Great stuff by the way) so I guess I'm now an expert on UK government. Uhhhhh, boy that's one big binder Tony Blair carries around with him... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2004 the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) didn't "amend" anything. They were part of the first constitution. The basic 10 rights of Americans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted March 2, 2004 You could also give us the decency of spelling 'Canadians' right, too. I've seen it spelled with an "e" as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 You could also give us the decency of spelling 'Canadians' right, too. I've seen it spelled with an "e" as well. Yeah, I've been taking French (god help me) so you're lucky I didn't spell it with 2 n's either! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 Somehow the whole "Gay Marriage Debate" reeks of "lets completely ignore the real issues in an election year and focus on something that really shouldn't be a federal government issue in the first place" Amendment 10 of the US Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Marriages are a states right which is why each state can have different rules about mariages. I don't see how the Federal Government should have any say in matters of marriage, even if the marriages aren't your traditional Man/Woman variety. Let the states decide on their own. As Mike has pointed out a billion times in the other thread the issue went to the states and to the people, the people voted "no" and the government is ignoring the will of the people, thus the problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 And, as other people pointed out, the will of the people isn't always what is right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slovakia 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 "Canadiens" is how the Quebecois would spell it...it also refers to Montreal's hockey team. EVerybody else uses the a, eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 2, 2004 And, as other people pointed out, the will of the people isn't always what is right. Then whose is? Yours? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 Damn straight (no pun intended). Slavery, treatment of blacks in the South, women not able to vote - all examples of the "will of the people". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 Damn straight (no pun intended). Slavery, treatment of blacks in the South, women not able to vote - all examples of the "will of the people". Actually I don't think any of those were "will of the people", there weren't referendums voted upon, those were just the standards of the time determined by the Founders. Eventually, the will of the people was considered and constitutional amendments were passed. The will of the people on this issue, disagrees with you. Sorry. We are a government of laws not men, and if the vote of the people is not respected, laws become meaningless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 2, 2004 Slavery Not exactly popular nationally when it ended. And it was decided by a FRIGGIN' WAR --- not an unaccountable judge sitting on a bench. Heck, judges passed ALL KINDS of horrible decisions (Plessy v Ferguson, anybody?) treatment of blacks in the South If you mean rampant segregation, it was quite legal until the assorted decisions that preceeded Brown v Bd. of Education hit. You can thank --- OH MY GOD! THE COURTS --- for that. As for violence, that is a violation of civil rights. If gays were being routinely lynched, then there would be a rather powerful movement against it and, quite likely, the President would send the Nat'l Guard out to deal with whomever it doing it. women not able to vote - all examples of the "will of the people". Yet, various states passed laws giving women suffrage and they won a Constitutional Amendment. Heck, they got the GOP on their side (yes, the sexist and racist GOP gave blacks and women the vote, while the "friend of all" Democratic Party seemed to have no real problem NOT giving those rights --- but, hey, that's another issue for another time) and they championed the cause. They MADE THEIR CASE. They didn't find selective mayors and judges to simply decide that their view was correct via decree. And, thus, people got over it fairly quickly. Meanwhile, an issue like, say, abortion STILL generates ton of passion and anger --- because a court made the decision and refused to give people a voice. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 The treatment of African Americans in the South was atrocious up to the 20th century, so to say that was "standards of the time determined by the Founders" is wrong. That was the implicit will of the people. Women's right to vote wasn't until the 20th century, either. You've got to balance "what everyone wants" against "what is right". Theoretically, you could pass an Amendment banning gay marriage, then in 2 years the majority could be in favor of marriage, then in another 2 years the opinion could change again. You can't be passing Amendments (or laws) and then repealing them and then passing again on the whim of public opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 2, 2004 The treatment of African Americans in the South was atrocious up to the 20th century, so to say that was "standards of the time determined by the Founders" is wrong. That was the implicit will of the people. Women's right to vote wasn't until the 20th century, either. You've got to balance "what everyone wants" against "what is right". Theoretically, you could pass an Amendment banning gay marriage, then in 2 years the majority could be in favor of marriage, then in another 2 years the opinion could change again. You can't be passing Amendments (or laws) and then repealing them and then passing again on the whim of public opinion. Passing Amendments isn't easy, you know. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2004 Well, it was only a hypothetical scenario. If you need to, replace "Amendments" with "laws", then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 2, 2004 Exactly. Everyone has their panties in a jumble over this but its not going to EVER get out of the House or the Senate. Only 45% of people actually want an amendment...people may be in favor of something but they generally accept that amending the consitution is too big a deal to tread lightly. See: Flag Burning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
