@firefly,
Quote:Really? Seems the right of women to vote was definitely limited, despite that fact. The civil rights of non-whites were extremely limited, first with regard to voting, then regarding the use of public facilities, like public restrooms and drinking fountains, and, of course, the right to marry whites.
And the Defense Of Marriage Act now limits the ability of gays and lesbians to marry their partners and enjoy all the legal and financial benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
And Japanese-Americans were put into internment camps during WWII.
LOL for the last two hundreds plus years the rights under the constitutions had been expanding and only contacting with prohibition for a short time.
Offering freedom for blacks and full citizenship for blacks, women voting rights and the rights to married outside of your "race" and now the right of homosexual marrieds is just now before the SC.
So by amendments or courts rulings the wonderful rights that the constitution had provide against the
tyranny of the majority had been increased and now you wish to try to take away 2 amendments rights and somehow do so without a constitution amendment Firefly??!!!!!????
Maybe you hold that document is disregard Firefly due to is not being created without human shortcomings but it been one hell of a barrier against people such as you who love to whipped up short term passions to try to take away long terms rights.
