The US Constitution: What's the Point Anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

Did you know the United States Constitution was printed on Monster Cables?

---

Is that why it's held up so well?

No, I suppose that wouldn't be.

Watch out US government!

Cheebs sees through you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

Notice however that the first amendment doesn't say a damn thing about the states making laws. Pennsylvania can certainly make a law preventing me from shouting "bomb" in a crowded airport. That's how it was supposed to be handled.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fourteenth Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

---

In layman's terms, if the Constitution says the Feds can't take a given right away from you, neither can any state. As for the idea that terroristic threats ought to be considered protected speech... wow, just wow.

Stop using Amendments to point out Cheebs lack of knowledge about Amendments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gas

In layman's terms, if the Constitution says the Feds can't take a given right away from you, neither can any state. As for the idea that terroristic threats ought to be considered protected speech... wow, just wow.

---

The 14th doesn't say a thing about speech. It was interpreted that way.

I'm not saying I think terrorist threats should be considered protected speech. I'm saying the Constitution considers it protected speech. Point to any place anywhere that gives any qualifiers to only protecting useful or non-destructive speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

Why isn't the Constitution amended when there are problems? Because it's very difficult to do. The difficulty was intended to prevent change, but it actually permits radical change by the judiciary...

---

So you support "It's too hard, fuck it" as a method of government? It would take one amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

The 14th doesn't say a thing about speech. It was interpreted that way.

I'm not saying I think terrorist threats should be considered protected speech. I'm saying the Constitution considers it protected speech. Point to any place anywhere that gives any qualifiers to only protecting useful or non-destructive speech.

---

it's really not hard to "interpret" it that way. It's actually more difficult not to, from where I sit. Just stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

The 14th doesn't say a thing about speech. It was interpreted that way.

---

Click for full size

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gas

In layman's terms, if the Constitution says the Feds can't take a given right away from you, neither can any state. As for the idea that terroristic threats ought to be considered protected speech... wow, just wow.

---

The issue isn't issuing terrorist (terroristic? wtf) threats. It's the broadening definition of what constitutes a terror threat - and that definition has become a parody. Anything deemed offensive is becoming more and more a reason to invade someone's personal rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

*Any Air Force at all
*Presidents declaring war

---

Since when did an airforce (not possible when the Cons. was written) require some kind of amendment?

Since when did a President actually declare war? Unless you mean "send in troops to bomb (usually brown) people" as declaring war then.....?