Moderateman Moderateman

THE NEW BILL OF RIGHTS

▼

THE NEW BILL OF RIGHTS

from JoeUser Forums
We the people that are citizens of the United States have declared that we have the following rights.

1. The right to not spend our tax dollars supporting people that have broken the law to come to America ILLEGALLY.

2. The right to have English as our national language.

3. The right to Protect ourselves from criminals with no legal reprisal.

4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people.

5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering.

6. The right to VOTE on if we send our tax dollars overseas to help countries that never appreciate it.

7. The right to recall any politician from any state that fails in his duty: example Drunken Ted Kennedy.

8. The right to worship or not worship God in public if we so choose.

9.The right to freedom from government interference in our private lives.

10.The right to not to have to support lazy bums that refuse to work for a living.
23,171 views 106 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
#24 by Gideon MacLeish
Thursday, May 18, 2006


The hype about not being able to express your religion publicly is exactly that: HYPE. I do not know of a single person who has ever been arrested for a display of faith in public, as long as that display was not lewd or seriously invasive of the rights of others.


ummm how about the kids that want to start a christian bible study at recess? it's ok for Muslims to do the same but not christians.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
"4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people."


Which would give your political opponents the right to vote in new amendments without some conservative judge overturning the will of the people. That you wouldn't tolerate for a minute. They get a majority and push through an amendment abridging your freedoms you'd be screaming for a judge to look out for you.


Actually, that is already a right. Once the process of amending the constitution is followed, the courts can only interpret the words. They cannot overturn it.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
"ummm how about the kids that want to start a christian bible study at recess? it's ok for Muslims to do the same but not christians."


Why should there be organized bible study on school grounds again? I dunno about your school, but by the time they come in and out, my little girl gets about 15-20 minutes of recess. Recess was supposed to be a break FROM study, last I heard.

In every school I have been a part of bible study was just used by some kids to push their beliefs on others. I have a feeling if a makeshift Maddrassa was set up by students and kids were being wooed toward Islam, you'd have a problem with it. If you think kids are going to have bible study without some kids trying to get their 'lost' friends to come, you aren't thinking about it much.

In all of these circumstances, too, kids invariably lord over one another and get into conflicts about beliefs. Children aren't responsible enough to undertake religious gatherings without supervision. Religion is a sacred thing that is very important to people. Dragging it out on the playground for kids to get into fights over isn't paying it much respect, and when teachers start overseeing it, it becomes a matter of church and state.

Kids should be able to pray, sure, to themselves. Kids should be able to express their religious beliefs in reasonable context and be free from having those beliefs attacked. I don't know of anything that says they should have the right to organized religious practice inside a public school though.

Feel free to point out where Christians have been told they can't and Muslims are told they can, though. I'd like to see where such a thing has happened.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's impossible to shove a Constitutional Amendment down anybody's throat.

Constitutional Amendments have to pass a supermajority of the Federal Legislature, and have to pass 3/4ths of the State Legislatures. You simply cannot get a Constitutional Amendment without overwhelming popular support.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, currently answers to nobody when they unilaterally and without consulting the people, reinterpret the existing text of the Constitution to conform to whatever moral, social, or political fads figured most greatly in their own lives.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
People want to refuse any aid to these people, but would they if they had the food in their hand and had to watch the people starve?


Lemme ask you this Baker. If someone breaks into your home takes your steak (because it isn't Top Ramen noodles) and is eating it in front of you claiming they are 'starving' you can't tell me you'd be okay with this. It's one thing to help them get on their feet but I'm not going to help the person who broke into my fridge and took my sirloin while I'm munchin on noodles. I do help the poor and homeless in my town to legals. But they are breaking and entering then screaming for rights. Reminds me of the criminals who break in and cut themselves on a knife then sue the homeowner. This is my perspective.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061201a.htm

this was overturned by the sumpemes, but the school at first denied them.

Prayer in Schools? Only for Muslims
7 September 2005 @ 3:14PM
Everybody knows that prayer isn't allowed in school--for Christians. But when the multicultural left goes against the atheist left, things get interesting. Perhaps because Islam has no connection to those racist dead white male oppressors who founded this country, the same standards that keep Christian prayer out of school apparently don't apply to Islamic prayer:
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Actually, that is already a right. Once the process of amending the constitution is followed, the courts can only interpret the words. They cannot overturn it."


(Link)

Stutefish: I hate the way the courts are used more than anyone, but saying that the legislature should be able to avoid checks and balances just by making what they want an amendment is abusive, too. MM would most certainly be expecting the courts to intervene if there were an amendment banning public displays of religious beliefs fast-tracked to pass.

What this perspective relies on is a reasonable population that agrees with you at least loosely. What you have to consider, though, is what is going to be done with these tools you are proposing in 50 years when the population is very different. How would it feel to see your 'no touching amendments' used to inhibit freedom, and the courts unable to touch it because of your edict?

I think they need to butt out more than they do, and I think we'd be better off if people didn't just invent rights out of thin air. That works both ways, though, and no one side is able to deem what is fit and what isn't.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's different, MM. THat's after school, not recess. When they single out Christians as they only group that CAN'T meet then they are discriminating against them. Recess is a totally different thing. Kids are forced to go to recess. No one is forced to get in their car and go to school after hours. The ability of abuse is too high when you have a captive audience.

"Everybody knows that prayer isn't allowed in school--for Christians. But when the multicultural left goes against the atheist left, things get interesting. Perhaps because Islam has no connection to those racist dead white male oppressors who founded this country, the same standards that keep Christian prayer out of school apparently don't apply to Islamic prayer:"


Who said Christians can't pray in school? Actually, Christians have more of an ability to pray in school, since there is no physical practice required for them to pray, like kneeling or facing Mecca.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
is there an actual case of someone suing a homeowner because they broke in and cut themselves? i doubt it...but even if there is ONE case,,,law and policy should not be a reaction to an anomoly.

plus,,,if there was a case where someone had the balls to do that, did they win? were they awarded anything? was that appealed? was the charge of breaking and entering still enforced?

examining all the facts and not just throwing out unsupported rhetoric and hyperbole is my perspective.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
#35 by little-whip
Thursday, May 18, 2006


is just too tired and preoccupied with personal issues at the moment to engage, but wanted to say hello, i was here, and i am following the debate~


could you use a friendly voice?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
SC: There have been cases where people were arrested because traps they set to catch burglers were successful. There was a case in florida where a store owner set up a metal grate to catch people coming in a door or window, and then electrified the grate. It killed the burgler, and the store owner was arrested for murder. Dunno what he ended up getting.

The fact is breaking and entering isn't a crime that merits a death sentence, neither is tresspassing. If the owner had been there and felt threatened it would have made sense to use deadly force, but that wasn't the circumstance.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
34 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Thursday, May 18, 2006


is there an actual case of someone suing a homeowner because they broke in and cut themselves? i doubt it...but even if there is ONE case,,,law and policy should not be a reaction to an anomoly.


yes, many of them.

plus,,,if there was a case where someone had the balls to do that, did they win? were they awarded anything? was that appealed? was the charge of breaking and entering still enforced?


yes they won WHILE in prison for the original crime.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
33 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Who said Christians can't pray in school? Actually, Christians have more of an ability to pray in school, since there is no physical practice required for them to pray, like kneeling or facing Mecca.


yes they can pray as Individuals, not in a group. Some schools have set aside a room for Muslims to pray while in school so they do not mis their 5 prayers a day.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
MM: i was looking for some details on a case or cases....not just more smoke....if you can provide,,,please do.


a link or case / docket # will do i believe,,,i can do my own research.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
They might set aside a private place for Muslims to kneel and face Mecca as they pray, but I doubt seriously that it is any kind of organized service. Are Christians required to kneel? Sounds kind of like someone who can walk being upset because the handicapped get a special ramp. If you are required to kneel maybe they'd make an allowance for you, too.

Granted, if you can find one where organized prayer for Muslims is allowed but not for Christians, post a link. Doubt you'll find it, though. It wouldn't excuse organized prayer for Christians, though, it would just point out where Muslims were abusing the system. Two abuses wouldn't make it right.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
40 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Thursday, May 18, 2006


not just more smoke


I would have to do the same thing you would have to do, I just remember reading about such things and I would have to start a search. You might find something about a new york taxi driver, that chased down a purse snatcher and pinned him to a wall with his cab, he did not injure the criminal but the criminal sued and won.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
#41 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Granted, if you can find one where organized prayer for Muslims is allowed but not for Christians, post a link. Doubt you'll find it, though. It wouldn't excuse organized prayer for Christians, though, it would just point out where Muslims were abusing the system. Two abuses wouldn't make it right.


I will look into this further, but baker you know how christians are being messed with and how the Muslims get away with things the christians don't.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
i asked because i was having trouble finding any actual instances that you claim. if you can help, thanks in advance,,,,if not, well,,,
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
http://starbulletin.com/98/02/11/editorial/chang.html

here you go, I found it by typing in "burgler sues homeowner and wins
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Baker, you're not paying attention.

The 3/4ths of all State legislatures must approve the Amendment. And then the Federal legislature must approve the amendment by a supermajority.

Please explain to me how that could come about without overwhelming public support, nationwide.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

MM: i was looking for some details on a case or cases....not just more smoke....if you can provide,,,please do.

Google is your friend.  I suggest starting at the Stella Awards.  That one tracks the stupids tho, not all of them criminal.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
47 by Dr. Guy
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Google is your friend. I suggest starting at the Stella Awards. That one tracks the stupids tho, not all of them criminal.


I found a link that was perfect doc.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
#46 by stutefish
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Baker, you're not paying attention.

The 3/4ths of all State legislatures must approve the Amendment. And then the Federal legislature must approve the amendment by a supermajority.

Please explain to me how that could come about without overwhelming public support, nationwide.


I refer you to prohibition, the people did not want it yet it passed into law.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Baker, you're not paying attention.

The 3/4ths of all State legislatures must approve the Amendment. And then the Federal legislature must approve the amendment by a supermajority.

Please explain to me how that could come about without overwhelming public support, nationwide.


Do you feel adequately represented, stutefish? Does your legislator do what you want them to do? Would you consider the Patriot Act to be something that represents the wishes of the constituants of the Dem Senators who voted for it?

No, you are talking about the approval of elected officials, not the people. There's an infinate difference. Do you think that prohibition would have been put in place had it been a referendum that decided?

So what you are talking about isn't a super-majority of the people. You are talking about the majority of two political machines that have been manipulated in the past few years into doing a LOT of things that the people they represent dispise.

You have faith in representation that I seem to lack. I don't know when your wishes were last represented, but it has been a long time since I have had Congresspeople that remotely resembled the stance of me or anyone I know, even in the party I choose. With the lack of scrutiny, my state government is far less representitive and far more corrupt.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
refer you to prohibition, the people did not want it yet it passed into law.


No, the majority was lead by a minority, but they did vote for it. That is when people do not question their leaders, but instead follow them blindly.