Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,569
- 16,268
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I tried. The software won't permit it.I don’t know either. Everyone could have ignored me. Strange.
The PM still does all of the important things associated with the "head of state" roll of the POTUS -- international relations, etc. Those monarchs just do the pointless ceremonial nonsense.In my opinion, the biggest mistake they made was to combine the duties of head of state and chief executive officer. I understand why they did it that way, they made their reasons clear but it has had unintended consequences in that it gives too much authority to the executive branch.
Imagine how England would look if the King was also the Prime Minister. It also forces us to elect a single person for two very different jobs. which is why we so often have Presidents who can't seem to do both at once.
Not so strange. Christian Nationalists are regarded these days with considerable suspicion and distrust. You had to know that your comments would not go unremarked.I don’t know either. Everyone could have ignored me. Strange.
You didn’t have to reply, though.I tried. The software won't permit it.
:ignore:You didn’t have to reply, though.
Yup. Free exchange of opinions is key to debate. And being forceful is no imposing. Even if you want to see All those babies die.Sure. Like with abortion.
Well, except when the right to medical care for women was subjected to other people's religious preferences.Yup. Free exchange of opinions is key to debate. And being forceful is no imposing. Even if you want to see All those babies die.
It happens both ways - like having to use certain pro nouns or loosing your career - or allowing men to use woman's bathrooms.Well, except when the right to medical care for women was subjected to other people's religious preferences.
That is what the "areligious" complain about...and rightfully so. I can be on your side with what is happening on this thread re: "nobody is mandating anything"....but in the reality of the politics, yes, they are.
I think that describes gun safety advocates frustration with what has happenned with ammendment 2.The Constitutional Convention used the words of their day to convey a specific meaning to the Constitution and Congress used similar words to define the 12 submitted Amendments for ratification. Where do we get off re-interpreting what they 'meant' instead of what they really say? If you don't like an amendment modify, change or override it with another; don't twist it into something by legal challenges for which it was not intended.
It is quite plain when you read it in the understanding of 1787.Totally. What a wreck the 2A is, just in terms of comprehensibility.
Not sure I follow......I think that describes gun safety advocates frustration with what has happenned with ammendment 2.
Unless, of COURSE, that situation is different.
I have doubts. Plenty other parts of the const are comprehensible. And Ive read other English language writings from the era that get their point across plainly. This isnt Chaucer.It is quite plain when you read it in the understanding of 1787.
Of course it is. The right of regulated members of the organized militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.It is quite plain when you read it in the understanding of 1787.
No no no! Its not a conditional clause. Its a standalone finding that is just positioned so it reads like a conditional clause - like they used to do all the time in 1787.Of course it is. The right of regulated members of the organized militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
What about it do you find not comprehensible?I have doubts. Plenty other parts of the const are comprehensible. And Ive read other English language writings from the era that get their point across plainly. This isnt Chaucer.
Examples please.....from a legal perspective please since we are talking about the meaning of a law....just positioned so it reads like a conditional clause - like they used to do all the time in 1787.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?