Abandoned Document
Created on: November 8th, 2006
Corruption, corruption and more corruption
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.74) | 144 | 2 | 60 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3,025 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 43 | https://www.bing.com |
| 4 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 3 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 3 | http://www.google.com |
the abandoned fad is dumb to begin with, then you are equating corruption with the constitution which basically endorsed slavery and gave hardly any rights...(besides ex post facto & bill of attaineder & habeas corups laws) [bill of rights also only accounted FOR THE FEDERAL GOV'T and NOT TO THE STATES...it was only till the Supreme Court incorporated the bill of rights through the 14th amendment do you and I realize our freedoms]...to us. die...die in a fire.
Pettitman, big mistake. same mistake that people make when they listen to a lot of politicians ... "he used terms i don't understand or care to learn. he's smart. i vote for him."
i'm not just saying we've gone against the rights given to us in the Constitution, but we've (in general) abandoned its basic principles. i mean, an ammendment banning gay marriage? how the hell is that related to governing the nation fairly, or to protecting it?
there is no gay marriage amendment. "but we've (in general) abandoned its basic principles" not really, the principles of the Constitution were to create a unified federal gov't which minimized the power of the majority...don't believe me? think how many times our constitution has been amended since its inception (27 if you didn't know) and how many other constitutions have failed in that time span (over 200 years). in order to pass amendments and laws we require super majorities and checks and balances
for both. our system favors the minority over the majority. your description is quite lame, also. you say "corruption, corruption" but you don't realize that even the founding fathers...the supposed 'bastions of free speech' tried to limit it and libel people who talked badly of them (see Thomas Jefferson). in reality, the freedoms most of us 'enjoy' were only b/c of these words "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person..."
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." we have not gone against the constitution b/c the consitution doesn't mention sh*t about individual rights you f*cking *ssh*le!!!! the only protections we are afforded were the ones i mentioned (and a few others)...we haven't gone away from the fact that there will be 100 senators and a president elected from an electoral colleg
lol moheevi you called me an *ssh*le :( and yes, the Constitution does mention quite a bit about individual rights. most of the Bill of Rights pertains to them. and i never said there was an amendment banning gay marriage, but the GOP wants such an amendment, which really has no place in the Constitution. good point though about the Constitution being aimed at limiting the power of the "majority". All i'm saying is that this government is more concerned with winning elections and trading favors with
corporations than with serving their constituencies. and Korf41, the point of a Constitution is that it CAN'T be "rewritten" .. that would be retarded .. it's there so that everyone who ever runs the country has to abide by it ... imagine if any government in place at the time could write a whole new constitution whenever they wanted to. we'd have a dictatorship by 1805. we can adjust it slightly through amendments, though, which is what we did about slavery.
the bill of rights were not originally in the constitution, hence i say the consititution does not mention individual rights that much. also "the point of a Constitution is that it CAN'T be "rewritten"" is a weak statement. the UK has no formal constitution, yet they seem to be doing well. also many state constitutions have been rewritten and rewritten again, it does not mean there will be rampant rape and crime. in fact many European countries HAVE rewritten their constitution, and they are doing well.
the only reason today we have judicial interpretation of the constitution and bill of rights is because it is so hard to amend, the Supreme Court found the right to privacy through 'penumbras' (don't ask) in the Bill of Rights.....also if you are so mad at the system, realize it is just a by-product of how our gov't is founded. the special interests and lobbyists have more of an interest in specific issues to stop things from happennening (the anti-majority part. f*ck gotta go.
you're missing my point moheevi.
1. i didn't say there would be rampant rape and crime if the Constitution could be rewritten. i'm just saying it would give gov't the excuse to do whatever it wants ... sort of. 2. you can't say that i have a weak argument about constitutions being there so that they can't be rewritten .. "the UK has no formal constitution, yet they seem to be doing well." what does that have to do with it? We DO have a constitution, which is a double-bladed sword: it can serve the good of
the nation (however you wanna define that .. which is another story), but it can also go against that greater good. The UK, i'm sure, has legislation in place to keep check on the way the government is run. just b/c another country has no constitution and is doing alright doesn't mean that a country that DOES have a constitution doesn't need to defend it and keep it intact. rewriting a constitution may be necessary at times, but the guiding principles must remain the same. the amendments that conservatives
are talking about adding (banning abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research) have nothing to do wit h the good of the nation ... these people are simply trying to force christian ethics into the lawbooks b/c they are afraid of change and the future. whether or not stem cell research is allowed, we all know that it's probably possible to clone a human, and these ppl just don't want to face that because it threatens them. this junk should not be allowed into a document that is meant to organize
government, simply b/c it has NOTHING TO DO with government or national defense. so what if two gay guys wanna get married .. i guess abortion is different b/c you can consider it murder, but gay marriage, stem cell research, allowing torture ... these issues should be no-brainers. i just don't get it . you don't amend a constitution because you are homophobic or b/c you don't understand science. it's like using the constitution as a shield against things that go against what you believed was the truth
It's a good thing your father died in 9/11 f*ggot. I HOPE HE DIED IN PAIN THAT F*GGOT C*CKSUCKER YOU N*GG*R LOVING JEW FACED KYKE F*GGOT. 9/11 OWNED YOU, BIN LADIN RAPED UR MOM F*G! It's a good thing your father died in 9/11 f*ggot. I HOPE HE DIED IN PAIN THAT F*GGOT C*CKSUCKER YOU N*GG*R LOVING JEW FACED KYKE F*GGOT. 9/11 OWNED YOU, BIN LADIN RAPED UR MOM F*G! It's a good thing your father died in 9/11 f*ggot. I HOPE HE DIED IN PAIN THAT F*GGOT C*CKSUCKER YOU N*GG*R LOVING JEW FACED KYKE F*GGOT. 9/11 OW
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link