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 #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
#50 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Do you feel adequately represented, 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?


question 1, NO, question 2, diane finestien and barbra boxer? HA! never.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
#51 by Dr. Guy
Thursday, May 18, 2006


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.


the people passed prohibition? yikes I gotta read more.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as I know prohibition passed like any other amendment. Wilson went so far as to veto it, if I recall, and they still overrode it. Even so, it was obviously not the will of the people any more than the majority of the crap Congress does NOW is the will of the people. That's why we have rights that government can't cross, and why we need courts to look at what the government does to decide whether those rights have been infringed, amendment or not.

That said, I don't think for a moment that the courts need to be inventing rights out of thin air, either. I am a huge critic of what is happening in the courts in the US overriding the will of the people. To be fair, though, to suggest that we should have the right to make amendments with no checks and balances, though, just invites oppression.

We don't need to change the system, we need to keep people from abusing it.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
54 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006


That's why we have rights that government can't cross, and why we need courts to look at what the government does to decide whether those rights have been infringed, amendment or not.


I refer you to californias prop 187, it passed by 65% saying the people of california should not have to pay for illegal immigrants medical or support them through welfare. One liberal judge killed it dead.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Patriot Act is not an amendment to the constitution. Because it must ultimately comply with the Constitution as currently written (and interpreted), it does not have to meet the same demanding standards of overwhelming support that a constitutional amendment must meet.

And yes, I do feel adequately represented. I also feel like I share the reins of government with several million other people, each of them as opinionated and demanding as I am. I don't see them getting what they want all the time, either. Or even much of the time.

And I also don't see thirty-seven State legislatures approving an amendment that the majority of their constituents didn't at least poll in favor of. Nor do I see the Federal legislature approving an anmendment that didn't have similar levels of national support.

I don't know much offhand about the Prohibition amendment, but I'd bet that either:

a) the people did want it, and then changed their minds and got rid of it about ten years later,

OR

b) the people didn't want it, and then promptly swapped out their legislators for new legislators that got rid of it.

Besides, how would you propose to change the fundamental law of the land, except by requiring vast majorities in the legislative bodies that are responsible for the laws in the land?

I could maybe see a direct vote, but not only are the logistics of such a thing pretty difficult, but one of the good reasons for a representative democracy is that it tends to mitigate the worst excesses of mob rule.

I figure, anything less than our current system would be unnecessarily tyrannical, and anything more would be unnecessarily risking mob rule.

Once you adjust for human weakness and the corruption that would be an inevitable part of any system of government, I think we've got it pretty good.

Besides, if oppressing the people through constitutional amendments are so easy, why aren't 3/4ths of our state legislators and a supermajority of federal legislators not amending our rights away on a regular basis?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have you really looked at 187, MM, or are you just using one of the "remember the alamo" issues that people on the left and right fall to ignorantly as a zinger?

187 denied people due process and was at odds with Federal laws. You can't do that, therefore it was blocked by the courts, until the governor of California ( who had opposed it originally ) finally decided it was futile to persue it further. One judge? Hardly, it was in and out of lots of courts, and didn't even hold up in mediation. So was it one liberal judge, a bunch, or the governor for not fighting for it?

Anyone who considers themselves a fan of personal freedom and privacy would have to vote against 187. If you like the idea of the goose-stepping authorities walking up to you and shouting "WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS??!?" and then when you don't have them shuffling you off without due process, well, this isn't the right country for you.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have you really looked at 187, MM,


I voted for it.
One judge? Hardly, it was in and out of lots of courts, and didn't even hold up in mediation. So was it one liberal judge, a bunch, or the governor for not fighting for it?



California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced by assemblyman Dick Mountjoy (Republican from Monrovia, California) as the Save Our State initiative. A number of other organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

I was wrong about the 65% as you can se it was 59%

one judge as soon as the vote was tallied. and it was not pursued further due to the lack of spine in the california legislature. The democrats were rabidly against 187, when it passed {remember this is the top liberal state in the union} the left had the papers drawn up already, they placed an injunction to keep it from becoming law.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Besides, if oppressing the people through constitutional amendments are so easy, why aren't 3/4ths of our state legislators and a supermajority of federal legislators not amending our rights away on a regular basis?"


stutefish: It's hard for me to believe that you are saying that. They don't steal our rights for the very reason MM is angry, because they have the courts to answer to when they try to. You have this irrational faith that government won't do what people don't want them to do, but the reason you CAN have that blind faith is 200 years of checks and balances that you guys would wave away without a thought.

You are advocating the easing of checks and balances and using the fruits of checks and balances as an argument. Our representitives COULD start eating into our freedom any time they chose without what you and MM discount. Instead of being greatful for it, you fault it because it keeps you from getting your way 100% of the time.

"one judge as soon as the vote was tallied. and it was not pursued further due to the lack of spine in the california legislature. The democrats were rabidly against 187, when it passed {remember this is the top liberal state in the union} the left had the papers drawn up already, they placed an injunction to keep it from becoming law."


Eh, that fight lasted until 1998, if I recall. One judge placed the injunction, sure, but it wasn't one judge that blocked it for years, and it was the governor who decided not to pursue it further in mediation.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
#59 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Eh, that fight lasted until 1998, if I recall. One judge placed the injunction, sure, but it wasn't one judge that blocked it for years, and it was the governor who decided not to pursue it further in mediation.


it was dead before the ink was dry on the votes.

Grey Davis was very against prop187 so was the entire left wing, yet the people in the most liberal state in the union are tired of seeing hospitals closed, paying for the education of Illegal people and supporting them, the debt of california is so huge due to the amout of money spent on ILLEGALS in part.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even so, it was obviously not the will of the people any more than the majority of the crap Congress does NOW is the will of the people. That's why we have rights that government can't cross, and why we need courts to look at what the government does to decide whether those rights have been infringed, amendment or not.


It was the will of those involved. And is a lesson for us even today, right?
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
refer you to californias prop 187, it passed by 65% saying the people of california should not have to pay for illegal immigrants medical or support them through welfare. One liberal judge killed it dead.


While that clown is wrong, a Prop is not an amendment. And vote those clowns out!
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
62 by Dr. Guy
Thursday, May 18, 2006


refer you to californias prop 187, it passed by 65% saying the people of california should not have to pay for illegal immigrants medical or support them through welfare. One liberal judge killed it dead.


While that clown is wrong, a Prop is not an amendment. And vote those clowns out


you are right of course, but this liberal judge looked at the state constitution and "saw" that Illegals have the right to mootch of the taxpayers.

Just like the idiots on SCOTUS "saw" women have a RIGHT to abortion.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ehhh....I'm not to fond of illegal immigration myself. Also, I am very picky with chnging *anything* that has to do with the US constitution. (Call it a pet peeve...)

Anywho...

~L
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
64 by ElindelWolf
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Ehhh....I'm not to fond of illegal immigration myself. Also, I am very picky with chnging *anything* that has to do with the US constitution. (Call it a pet peeve...)


So am I, but {yes the dreaded but} they founding Fathers made it possible to be able to change or amend the constitution, they must have done this for a very good reason.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
yayyyyyyyy the congress must have read my blog and voted "english" as the national language!!! yayyyyyyyyyyyy
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman


True enough. Its just that, then we get those in office that are, shall I say, "brain challenged" (or so it seems), and things go to hell in a hand basket.

yayyyyyyyy the congress must have read my blog and voted "english" as the national language!!! yayyyyyyyyyyyy


Meh? They would never do that, it's *so* not PC.

~L
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oops, double post...
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
67 by ElindelWolf
Thursday, May 18, 2006


yayyyyyyyy the congress must have read my blog and voted "english" as the national language!!! yayyyyyyyyyyyy


Meh? They would never do that, it's *so* not PC.


yes they did it was just reported on the news.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bloody amazing...truly flipping amazing. I know one person that will be ecstatic.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
70 by ElindelWolf
Thursday, May 18, 2006


Bloody amazing...truly flipping amazing. I know one person that will be ecstatic.


just one? geeeze I have 2 right here in my home!
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, the Senate voted for it. That would be the same Senate that "sold us out", evidently. It would have to pass the house, and be signed by the President to become law, and make it past the courts. I know of no one that isn't reporting this as totally symbolic. It's also a rider on the immigration bill, so that would have to pass as well when the house already has one of their own. Check to see if it is snowing in hell.

It's just a cultural supremacist statement to please people like MM on the run-down to this fall's elections. Yet another empty move that they won't follow through with once the ballots are cast. They sell MM out, but appease him with a symbolic act. It's also a rider on the immigration bill, so that would have to pass as well...

They also passed a "softer" one today that said English was declared "the common and unifying language of the United States" and NOT the official language. I wonder which one will make it through, if any.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, thanks for clarifying it Baker. Course, I don't understand why people wouldn't want to learn english, most of the places i see around here (klamath), it would benefit. That or learn spanish. :S *sigh* I don't know... I just want people to follow the law, period. Thats all...I guess there are those who seem to think they are above it...
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just like the idiots on SCOTUS "saw" women have a RIGHT to abortion.

I have a novel idea that will never fly, but should be done.  Why dont we pass an amendment clearly stating the right to privacy?  That would end the debate once and for all.  But I would wager the ones that would be most opposed are the ones who celebrate the SCOTUS ruling.

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
EW: I think most of them would. If you want a concise answer as to why most of them don't, accuse MM of being lazy for not learning spanish. He'll rattle off a half dozen reasons why a person-on-the-go has a hard time learning a second language and shouldn't be expected to.

Then just take his excuses, change Spanish to English, and realize that most of them are working harder than we are, and you've got your answer.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, May 19, 2006EW: I think most of them would. If you want a concise answer as to why most of them don't, accuse MM of being lazy for not learning spanish. He'll rattle off a half dozen reasons why a person-on-the-go has a hard time learning a second language and shouldn't be expected to.


suprise baker, I speak spanish, matter of fact I grew uip in a multi language household, My mom who had no education spoke Turkish, Spanish, french and english. My anger with people that refuse to learn english comes from watching my mother and father struggle to learn english. I could not in my wildest dreams see my father DEMANDING americans speak to him in any of the other 3 languages he spoke, or demanding everyone change the way the do buisness and write contracts in multi languages.

Now more to the point you been way harsh with me, have I done something to anger you that I am unaware of? If I have I apoligize, If I have not, cool your jets baker, your sniping at me is starting to annoy me.