cows ... the Constitution ... and the Ten Commandments

[tyflier]

I agree it's not one of those places. I was trying to make the point that he used the two most archaic, irrelevant responses to show that the constitution is used today. Slavery was abolished in 1865 and women earned the right to vote by the 19th amendment in 1920 when it was passed by congress. Hardly applicable to any statement made in 2010.

So...the OP is exercising their right to Free Speech by posting this topic. Ok...I agree.

Someone replies saying that they disagree with the OP, for whatever reason, and cites examples as to why, and you tell them if they don't like the OP, they shouldn't say anything.

I'm confused. Could you please draw me an outline as to when Freedom of Speech is acceptable and when it is not? If Free Speech protects the OP's right to post this topic, does it not also protect everyone else's right to voice their opinion regarding this topic?

It's really tough to say one person has the right to say what they feel because of free speech in the same breath that you are attempting to tell someone else that they do NOT have a right to voice an opposing opinion. I mean...it doesn't get much hypocritical than that.

Don't get me wrong...you have every right to voice that opinion, and I will fight to protect your right to voice that opinion. But I will also fight to protect MY right to say that your opinion is pretty ridiculous. Laughable, in it's irony, even.

 

[tyflier]

No, I may have my own views for my life, but I don't care who people fall in love with and wish to marry, what religion they practice (I practice a misunderstood alternative religion myself), or any of that. It applies across the board as far as I'm concerned. However, I do care about legislation that will directly affect my way of life ie guns, as of lately reptiles which I can or can't have, etc. The freedoms in the constitution should be universal, not tailored to fit a politcal parties agenda or corporate interests.

I agree with you. However, the government does not. And neither do the politicians that run it. Unfortunately, many citizens forget that while the constitution is their to give them the freedom to live their lives as they fit, it is also their to protect everyone else's right to do the same thing.

You want guns. Fine. Others want gay marriage. Why aren't you fighting as hard to protect gay marriage as you are to protect guns?(not you, personally, but in general)

You want the right to open and run a small business and not be taxed out of business for it. Fine. Others want assurances that large corporations are regulated to prevent fraud and theft from private citizens. Why aren't you fighting to protect the rights of the private citizens, which are guaranteed by the constitution, instead of crying SOCIALISM when big corporations are told to play fair? (for the record, big companies and corporations aren't guaranteed any rights under the constitution, as far as I know. Sure, they didn't exist back then but...the Constitution is written in English, so how much could possibly be lost in translation?:shrugs

In the end, I don't disagree with you, I just find it slightly ironic how you have chosen to use freedom of speech as both armor and sword in this topic. It makes me laugh...

 

[JNugent]

That's fine. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to talk. I merely informed him he could hit the back button if he didn't like it. I meant to portray that if you'd like to have a politcal argument to present relevant, current information to support your theory as stated in my later post. That is the basis (or at least should be) for any debate. In fact, I invite him to share his opinion, and give a good basis to support it, or anyone else who wishes to do so.

 

[tyflier]

That's fine. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to talk. I merely informed him he could hit the back button if he didn't like it. I meant to portray that if you'd like to have a politcal argument to present relevant, current information to support your theory as stated in my later post. That is the basis (or at least should be) for any debate. In fact, I invite him to share his opinion, and give a good basis to support it, or anyone else who wishes to do so.

I'm really not trying to pick on you or anything. But really, what difference does it make?

Slavery doesn't exist in the US because of the constitution. You say it's irrelevant. I say that slavery still exists in many places in this world that do not have a constitution. That makes it current and relevant.

You say women's rights aren't relevant. I say half the world would completely disagree with you today, so...How is it irrelevant?

You can't have a debate, and expect to tell your opponents what evidence and support they are allowed to use. If it is factual, documented, and supportive of your opinion...it'srelevant, my friend.

 

[JNugent]

I'm saying that last time I checked in this country, whose constitution we were talking about by the original joke told, those issues are no longer current political issues. Both women and african-american / minorites of any types hold positions in the highest levels of the military, civilian and politcal offices to include the President. I can't see how any of them are being held down in this country.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

I'm saying that last time I checked in this country, whose constitution we were talking about by the original joke told, those issues are no longer current political issues. Both women and african-american / minorites of any types hold positions in the highest levels of the military, civilian and politcal offices to include the President. I can't see how any of them are being held down in this country.

Hmm, can't you? Because I certainly can... there are still lots of jobs in which women cannot expect to succeed, and abolishing slavery has far from abolished racism and hatred, and acts committed in the name of that hate. The only part of the constitution that could be considered irrelevant to today's life if the part about not having to house a soldier against your will.

 

[JNugent]

Ok. But what does hatred and racism have to do with slavery being abolished? Are slaves being kept in this country? No. Then slavery or the keeping of slaves is a dead issue. Hatred and racism are due to people's personal views and no amount of constitutional change or legislation will ever fix that. Sad, but true. People will have to change, not laws, for prejudices to go away. Also women can vote in this country and can earn about any job they want. There are a few select military occupations such as infantry, special ops and the harder combat arms MOS's I'll admit, but name most any job and I'm sure a woman or minority has held that job. If individuals have a perception they won't succeed then again, no law can change that. But the opportunities to succeed are there for anyone today regardless of race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or whatever excuse people look for to justify their lack of taking advantage of those opportunites afforded to them.

 

[wstphal]

You want guns. Fine. Others want gay marriage. Why aren't you fighting as hard to protect gay marriage as you are to protect guns?(not you, personally, but in general)

You want the right to open and run a small business and not be taxed out of business for it. Fine. Others want assurances that large corporations are regulated to prevent fraud and theft from private citizens. Why aren't you fighting to protect the rights of the private citizens, which are guaranteed by the constitution, instead of crying SOCIALISM when big corporations are told to play fair? (for the record, big companies and corporations aren't guaranteed any rights under the constitution, as far as I know. Sure, they didn't exist back then but...the Constitution is written in English, so how much could possibly be lost in translation?:shrugs

Really good first point!! I know you probably don't like libertarians much, but they generally ARE pro-gun and pro-gay marriage simultaneously. More Second Amendment supporters should be. Check out Pink Pistols:

http://www.pinkpistols.org

for another organization that is consistent on your first point.

Unfortunately, the 2nd point seems a little troublesome. I believe that although the US Constitution didn't originally guarantee any rights to corporate entities, as far back as 100 years ago it was interpreted to guarantee the same rights to them as to specific persons (citizens), that corporate entities = legal persons. That under stare decisis was the basis of the 2009 SCOTUS decision about corporate campaign advertising. Now, should this be the interpretation? That's open to question. Is it the current interpretation? If I understand correctly, yes. Personally, I think the mistake on this issue was made a long time ago; that horse is out of the barn for good.

 

[Raptor]

I agree it's not one of those places. I was trying to make the point that he used the two most archaic, irrelevant responses to show that the constitution is used today. Slavery was abolished in 1865 and women earned the right to vote by the 19th amendment in 1920 when it was passed by congress. Hardly applicable to any statement made in 2010.

I'm a she, thanks. I was going to say more, but everything already got covered x)

 

[tyflier]

Ok. But what does hatred and racism have to do with slavery being abolished? Are slaves being kept in this country? No. Then slavery or the keeping of slaves is a dead issue.

A dead issue? Really? Do away with the Constitutionally Mandated ideal of every man being created equal...see what happens...

Hatred and racism are due to people's personal views and no amount of constitutional change or legislation will ever fix that. Sad, but true. People will have to change, not laws, for prejudices to go away.

People don't change unless they are forced to change. The Constitution forces people to change their actions, if not their thinking. You might just be surprised to find out how many people still support the idea of slavery based on race, religion, or some other "dead issue". I don't have numbers, but I know there are an awful lot of hateful bigots of every race and color left in this country. I can't imagine how they would act if not for the Constitution continuing to protect "daed issues".

Also women can vote in this country and can earn about any job they want. There are a few select military occupations such as infantry, special ops and the harder combat arms MOS's I'll admit, but name most any job and I'm sure a woman or minority has held that job.

Again...this is only true because anything else is illegal. These ideals are enforced by the Constitution. Do away with those madates, and things might change...drastically...and not for the better.

If individuals have a perception they won't succeed then again, no law can change that. But the opportunities to succeed are there for anyone today regardless of race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or whatever excuse people look for to justify their lack of taking advantage of those opportunites afforded to them.

One more time, this is only true because these "dead issues" are Constitutional Mandates.

Your entire argument that these are "dead issues" relies solely and entirely on the Constitution continuing to protect people from this sort of intolerance and abuse. Were the Constitution not so, these "dead issues" would be alive and well, and likely thriving in this country. IMHO, that makes them quite the opposite of "dead issues"...

Wstphal--
That was kind of my point...The US Constitution has been constantly and continually interpreted and re-interpreted by SCOTUS. It's absolutely necessary. Yet...some people seem to think that since it was written by English-speaking people, it is cut and dry, and therefor requires no interpretation. Obviously, this is entirely not true.

Of course...people will pick and choose which parts require inerpretation and which don't according to their own personal morals. But that is human nature.