Not really. The constitution has several change mechanisms built into it. Hence why African Americans are no longer considered 3/5 of a person and women have the right to vote. Both fundamental changes to America.
Upvote
0
Liberty Council goes off the deep end
- Thread starter Gishin
- Start date
Not really. The constitution has several change mechanisms built into it. Hence why African Americans are no longer considered 3/5 of a person and women have the right to vote. Both fundamental changes to America.
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,133
- 5,624
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Not really. The constitution has several change mechanisms built into it. Hence why African Americans are no longer considered 3/5 of a person and women have the right to vote. Both fundamental changes to America.
So you agree, then, that fundamental change should come through the Constitution, rather than having the junta ram it down our throats, a la Obamacare?
Upvote
0
Really? Because I was under the impression that the American public was pretty evenly split on the idea. The fact that a very vocal minority made a fuss at town halls does not change that.
It is also a fact that we are a representative democracy. Once we elect leaders they are under no obligation to follow the dictates of the people. Most do, in order to be reelected. But you do have occasions where they feel honor bound to follow the dictates of their conscience instead of the will of the people. For example Bush pushing for war in Iraq. He felt that it was the right course of action even though many disagreed with him. Should he have only listened to the will of the people instead of dealing with what he saw as a real and immanent danger?
Upvote
0
I believe the jury is still out on if Obamacare is legal or not. Personally I find myself conflicted on the whole constitutional issue with it. But yes, I do feel that changes should be done via the processes we have in place.
Upvote
0
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,133
- 5,624
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So I guess since the majority was in favor of it that's why those who voted for it were reelected last November, right?
Then it's a democracy without representation, correct?
Of course, if it were a conservative Christian voting against homosexual marriage on the basis of conscience, the liberals would be all over him, wouldn't they?
He should have followed the Constitution. Which, by the way, does not include the War Powers Act.
Upvote
0
Was there one and only one reason why there was a large turnover in the HOR? Personally I thought it was more about the dissatisfaction with the bubble bursting and the economy. Of course, you know what they say about opinions.
No, voting for your representative would be representation, yes? And it is impossible for a representative to do things the way everyone who voted for them want, let alone dealing with those who voted for someone else.
Yes, they would. Simply because they were following the dictates of their conscience does not preclude people from disagreeing with them, does it?
I agree. But it does not change that he followed his conscience in the face of pressure not to. And he managed to be re-elected as well so a majority obviously did not disagree with it enough to put another man in power.
Upvote
0
I'm willing to bet there are quite a number of things we agree on. This forum is simply not conducive to finding those things.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Technically you are correct, since it was all slaves. All slaves where, however, counted as 3/5ths of a person for taxation and representation purposes.
So we are in agreement that it is possible to fundamentaly change America in accordance with the constitution?
Upvote
0
Ringo84
Separation of Church and State expert
- Jul 31, 2006
- 19,228
- 5,252
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The only ones "undermining our religious freedoms" are the members of the Liberty Council, who actively fight against the Separation of Church and State - a subject they obviously know nothing about, but that doesn't stop them from commenting on it.
As Baptists, they should know better.
I thought that was settled a year or so ago. There are no actual "czars" in the United States; it's a short-hand term for people in policy positions. Let's cut to the real issues facing Americans.
I don't think these people - or anyone who runs around this country screaming 'Socialism!' - would know true Socialism if it bit them in the rear.
Ringo
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Notamonkey
Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 1,203
- 57
- 59
- Faith
- Nazarene
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The plan is at the core of socialism. The central plan, 5 year plan by people who can't have any idea about what people want or need dictating what they assume people want or need is what socialism is all about.
We have public schools- socialism and we have ObamaCare which left to it's disign will be another example of a pure socialist plan. The planners are the biggest beneficianries of socialism. Public schools are formulated to benefit specific interest groups.
We have public schools- socialism and we have ObamaCare which left to it's disign will be another example of a pure socialist plan. The planners are the biggest beneficianries of socialism. Public schools are formulated to benefit specific interest groups.
Upvote
0
Time to actually read the Constitution. You are technically right, it was "bound persons", not "slaves".
Article 1, section 2, paragraph 3
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
Upvote
0
OK. Got a citation for that?
You seem to have lost the thread of the conversation. Here, let me refresh your memory.
Belk said:
MachZer0 said:
Belk said:
MachZer0 said:
Belk said:Not really. The constitution has several change mechanisms built into it. Hence why African Americans are no longer considered 3/5 of a person and women have the right to vote. Both fundamental changes to America.
Now then, do you or do you not agree that it is possible for there to be a fundamental change to the US via constitutional processes? If not why not?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
