Subject:
|
constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:21:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri.#avoidspam#edu
|
Viewed:
|
925 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee wrote:
>
> amendmant. No one here seems to think that the BoR needs,
> requires, or should be in anyway, at anytime, be re-evaluated.
I think it's a pretty strong corner-stone for our nation. It may need
to be altered as time marches on...I just don't see a burning need.
Actually, I would like to see the ammendments that pass the rights and
duties which aren't specifically laid out for the federal government
said more forcefully and then adhered to.
> In this particular example, the 2nd amendmant, is that, an
> amendmant. I don't know if any subsequent amendmants applied
> specifically to the 1st 10, but does not necessarily mean
> that they should be regarded as the final word on the matter.(1)
They are the official current word. They can be altered. In this way
they aren't final, but in others they are.
> of the rampant paranoia :)(justified? Maybe, maybe not), that
> Americans seem to feel about their government, at the very
> least to further ensure and guarantee rights.
I think most citizens of the US are not paranoid. I am, but I am
strongly in the minority. People mostly don't even want to think about
the idea that the gubmint isn't really there to make everything groovy.
> Where is slavery justified or supported, and the slaves' lack of rights?
By the commonly held idea that the slaves weren't people. Our
constitution doesn't give those rights to horses either.
> The original document, or the BoR? And "universal(2)" sufferage?
>
> (2) Shouldn't children be able to vote? Criminal culpability
> starts at 14? So why not vote from that age? Why not foreigners
I agree.
> living in a country? Their ties may be to their homeland, but
> live, work, & contribute to their adoptive homes. Why not be
> able to vote on issues, and for politicians that endorse issues,
> that affect them as much as the next person? (3)
There should be no such thing as citizenship, nationality, or
foreigners. People should subscribe to the legal systems they believe
in and that may require them to live in certain places. I love the US
(the idea, not the government), but I'm not tied to living here forever
if I could find somewhere better. National governments are outmoded.
> (3) An individual of foreign-birth cannot run for president. Does
> it apply to the child of 2 American parents born overseas? What
I was born in Germany to two citizens of the US. I naturalized and have
always been a US citizen. I am eligible to run for president, but I
suppose the Supreme Court could be asked to clarify the rules.
> of someone who has moved to the states with their families as
> a child? My observations of some people in that situation is
> that they are more "American" than many 2nd- or more generation
> Americans!
Yup. Dumb old paradigm thing. Why not let Mexicans (or whomever) be
president so long as they'll manage the company (er, country) appropriately.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| On Fri, 14 May 1999 14:37:11 GMT, Duane Hess uttered the following profundities... (...) But is in itself an amendment. Other rights and issues have been amended, reinforced, clarified, etc. (and one repealed). One observation, and I am not (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
