1
   

Why is it always the First Amendment they screw with?

 
 
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 04:36 pm
There are now efforts to infringe on two of the rights Americans have by passing Constitutional amendments. Liberals shouldn't fight this trend. We should join it.

I propose this as the Constitutional amendment.

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical ownership of handguns in the United States.


If disrespect the Bill of Rights so much you feel you need to change it, you might as well change it in a way that might actually save some lives.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 651 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 10:44 pm
Re: Why is it always the First Amendment they screw with?
ebrown_p wrote:
There are now efforts to infringe on two of the rights Americans have by passing Constitutional amendments. Liberals shouldn't fight this trend. We should join it.

I propose this as the Constitutional amendment.

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical ownership of handguns in the United States.


If disrespect the Bill of Rights so much you feel you need to change it, you might as well change it in a way that might actually save some lives.


Nah, there's nothing to worry about on the first amendment, since any person who can't possibly have read the Constitution even once - if he had he would know to start without the article in front of "Congress", this not being the Mexican constitution - is still able to post his nonsense at will.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 12:02 am
Re: Why is it always the First Amendment they screw with?
HofT wrote:

Nah, there's nothing to worry about on the first amendment, since any person who can't possibly have read the Constitution even once - if he had he would know to start without the article in front of "Congress", this not being the Mexican constitution - is still able to post his nonsense at will.


As someone who undoubtedly has more than a passing acquaintance with language, HofT should realize that the Constitution does not establish the rules of grammar for English.

I've searched high and low, up and down for your rule but I can't seem to locate it. Has it perhaps eluded you, HofT, that a tongue in cheek riposte doesn't have to follow a document, rather a native English speaker will go to the default rules that we all have within our craniums?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 08:10 am
JTT - thank you for your kind words about my Sprachgefühl. I must agree with your comment on "riposte" also, since the only riposte until your arrival on this thread was mine.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:03 am
HofT wrote:
JTT - thank you for your kind words about my Sprachgefühl. I must agree with your comment on "riposte" also, since the only riposte until your arrival on this thread was mine.


You're welcome, HofT.

I think you'll agree that E Brown does not live in a vacuum. Nor do I think you believe he was sitting in front of a mirror, babbling to himself when he came up with this unique idea. His words speak clearly to an a priori party or parties, to whom he ripostes;

Quote:
There are now efforts to infringe on two of the rights Americans have by passing Constitutional amendments. Liberals shouldn't fight this trend. We should join it.

I propose this as the Constitutional amendment. ...
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:37 am
JTT - these are the only 2 proposals for constitutional amendments currently listed on the official site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

1 . Every Vote Counts Amendment (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.8.IH]
2 . 527 Reform Act of 2005 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.1053.PCS]

As to any representations on the original poster's physical surroundings or state of mind I make none, knowing nothing of the person except for what he/she posts here.

I remain baffled about the allegation made in the headline concerning purported dangers to the First Amendment by either of those proposals, not to mention about the (implied) way in which imposing restrictions on the Second Amendment might strengthen the First.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:50 am
HofT wrote:
JTT - these are the only 2 proposals for constitutional amendments currently listed on the official site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

1 . Every Vote Counts Amendment (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.8.IH]
2 . 527 Reform Act of 2005 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.1053.PCS]

As to any representations on the original poster's physical surroundings or state of mind I make none, knowing nothing of the person except for what he/she posts here.

I remain baffled about the allegation made in the headline concerning purported dangers to the First Amendment by either of those proposals, not to mention about the (implied) way in which imposing restrictions on the Second Amendment might strengthen the First.


Which site did you use? thomas gave me..

16 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.16.IH]
18 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.24.IH]
26 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.14.IH]
37 . Every Vote Counts Amendment (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.8.IH]
39 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to equality of rights and reproductive rights. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.31.IH]
41 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.4.IH]
43 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.1.IS]
48 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.13.IS]
49 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.40.IH]
50 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to school prayer. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.21.IH]

Those were just the obvious ones with one search. I haven't refined it to look for others. I believe the house has a flag burning amendment that isn't in that list.

A search of "flag" brought up the following
7 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.J.RES.10.EH]
8 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.5.IH]
9 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.12.IS]
10 . Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 10) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical... (Reported in House)[H.RES.330.RH]
11 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.10.IH]
12 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Reported in House)[H.J.RES.10.RH]
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:53 am
Exact result as obtained by search on site posted for "constitutional amendment":
___________________________________________

50 Bills from the 109th Congress ranked by relevance on "constitutional+amendment ".
2 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
48 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
0 bills containing one or more of your search words.
___________________________________________
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:56 am
P.S. the link you post is identical to the one I posted, but possibly I should have broadened the wording to include the remaining 48 bills. Only 2 were mentioned in the original post, so I looked no further - my mistake.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:58 am
A search of the 109th congress for amendment + constitution gave me 50 pieces of legislation with all but 3 of them saying "amendment to the constitution" in the title.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 10:00 am
Yes, Parados, these are the same 50 (48+2) mentioned in my post immediately preceding your latest one. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 10:04 am
HoT,

The beauty of search engines. You have to figure out how to get around their limitations. (I guess thats why it helps to have 2 people do the search.)

"Amendment to the constitution" seems to be the standard phrase in Congress as opposed to "constitutional amendment"
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 10:05 am
True, Parados. I guess more parsing will be required for investigating which of the 50 actually threaten the First Amendment, or why we need a 51st Smile
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 01:59 pm
The one that has gotten the most press lately is the "flag desecration" one since that was actually passed by the House and is expected to come close in the Senate.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 07:26 pm
HofT wrote:
JTT - these are the only 2 proposals for constitutional amendments currently listed on the official site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

1 . Every Vote Counts Amendment (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.8.IH]
2 . 527 Reform Act of 2005 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.1053.PCS]

As to any representations on the original poster's physical surroundings or state of mind I make none, knowing nothing of the person except for what he/she posts here.

I remain baffled about the allegation made in the headline concerning purported dangers to the First Amendment by either of those proposals, not to mention about the (implied) way in which imposing restrictions on the Second Amendment might strengthen the First.


I concur. You do seem baffled, HofT. Postings subsequent to yours, above, illustrate that you don't live in a vacuum either.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why is it always the First Amendment they screw with?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 12:03:09