Looks straight-forward enough .....
... but ignoring poor grammar for the moment, what about the inauguration oath?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ........ to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Does that mean that only a president who is not performing "to the best of his ability" may put into motion any amendment that proposes to "destroy" or "dilute" the constitution or "oppose" it? That's quite a Catch 22!
Amending the American Constitution:
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
I am sure you had an intended point, but it seems to have evaded me.
But to specifically answer your question:
Does that mean that only a president who is not performing "to the best of his ability" may put into motion any amendment that proposes to "destroy" or "dilute" the constitution or "oppose" it?
No president can put into motion any amendment.
But to specifically answer your question:
Does that mean that only a president who is not performing "to the best of his ability" may put into motion any amendment that proposes to "destroy" or "dilute" the constitution or "oppose" it?
No president can put into motion any amendment.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Amending the American Constitution:
Where does it say a president may put into motion any amendment in the first place?
Amending the American Constitution:
gmc;1463527 wrote: Where does it say a president may put into motion any amendment in the first place?
nowhere that I am aware of.
If this is where the OP is coming from:
Obama Says He Is In a Strong Position To Amend The Constitution and Repeal Citizens United
The article's title is a tad misleading. You have to read a little deeper.
According to a new book by Ken Vogel, President Obama told Democratic donors that he believes he is in a strong position to lead the movement to ratify a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United.
So Obama could lead the charge for such an amendment, but that would mean working outside of the White House, probably after his term is up, to organize the movement within congress, or to organize a constitutional convention.
nowhere that I am aware of.
If this is where the OP is coming from:
Obama Says He Is In a Strong Position To Amend The Constitution and Repeal Citizens United
The article's title is a tad misleading. You have to read a little deeper.
According to a new book by Ken Vogel, President Obama told Democratic donors that he believes he is in a strong position to lead the movement to ratify a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United.
So Obama could lead the charge for such an amendment, but that would mean working outside of the White House, probably after his term is up, to organize the movement within congress, or to organize a constitutional convention.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463516 wrote: Looks straight-forward enough .....
... but ignoring poor grammar for the moment, what about the inauguration oath?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ........ to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Does that mean that only a president who is not performing "to the best of his ability" may put into motion any amendment that proposes to "destroy" or "dilute" the constitution or "oppose" it? That's quite a Catch 22!
I don't believe the founders were worried about a president seeking to change the Constitution.
Problem comes when he ignores the Constitution and goes about his way, abuses his powers.
... but ignoring poor grammar for the moment, what about the inauguration oath?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ........ to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Does that mean that only a president who is not performing "to the best of his ability" may put into motion any amendment that proposes to "destroy" or "dilute" the constitution or "oppose" it? That's quite a Catch 22!
I don't believe the founders were worried about a president seeking to change the Constitution.
Problem comes when he ignores the Constitution and goes about his way, abuses his powers.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
tude dog;1463545 wrote: I don't believe the founders were worried about a president seeking to change the Constitution.
Problem comes when he ignores the Constitution and goes about his way, abuses his powers.
Probably yes, but my point is if the constitution can be technically amended wouldn't the president's oath be a legal block? I don't want to be too dramatic but if a movement to amend the constitution were to be initiated it would come into direct confrontation with the president (his duty), which I suppose could be considered an attack on U.S. government, ie. a revolution.
Problem comes when he ignores the Constitution and goes about his way, abuses his powers.
Probably yes, but my point is if the constitution can be technically amended wouldn't the president's oath be a legal block? I don't want to be too dramatic but if a movement to amend the constitution were to be initiated it would come into direct confrontation with the president (his duty), which I suppose could be considered an attack on U.S. government, ie. a revolution.
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463553 wrote: Probably yes, but my point is if the constitution can be technically amended wouldn't the president's oath be a legal block? I don't want to be too dramatic but if a movement to amend the constitution were to be initiated it would come into direct confrontation with the president (his duty), which I suppose could be considered an attack on U.S. government, ie. a revolution.
Hardly. Since the amendment process is specifically defined in the the document itself, as long as the process is following protocol, then the president has no part to play. Besides, all members of Congress make the same oath. The constitution does not change until the new amendment is ratified. And actually it does not change until the date specified in the amendment, itself.
Hardly. Since the amendment process is specifically defined in the the document itself, as long as the process is following protocol, then the president has no part to play. Besides, all members of Congress make the same oath. The constitution does not change until the new amendment is ratified. And actually it does not change until the date specified in the amendment, itself.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463555 wrote: Hardly. Since the amendment process is specifically defined in the the document itself, as long as the process is following protocol, then the president has no part to play. Besides, all members of Congress make the same oath. The constitution does not change until the new amendment is ratified. And actually it does not change until the date specified in the amendment, itself.
So you don't think that efforts to amend the constitution will be challenged as constitutional infidelity, and an attack on the constitution itself?
So you don't think that efforts to amend the constitution will be challenged as constitutional infidelity, and an attack on the constitution itself?
Amending the American Constitution:
Perhaps it could be seen as defending the Constitution's ability to be amended.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463559 wrote: Perhaps it could be seen as defending the Constitution's ability to be amended.
I don't know about that. You do know why I'm asking this question, don't you.
I don't know about that. You do know why I'm asking this question, don't you.
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463557 wrote: So you don't think that efforts to amend the constitution will be challenged as constitutional infidelity, and an attack on the constitution itself?
Only by the people who don't understand the Constitution.
Only by the people who don't understand the Constitution.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463563 wrote: Only by the people who don't understand the Constitution.
And what percent of the American, “Pro Gun - 2nd. Amendment-quoting population is characterized by your statement, do you think? Personally, I mean.
And what percent of the American, “Pro Gun - 2nd. Amendment-quoting population is characterized by your statement, do you think? Personally, I mean.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463561 wrote: I don't know about that. You do know why I'm asking this question, don't you.
Don't keep me in suspense. Anyway, you are nit-picking. Read & trust every response Lars has made to you.
Don't keep me in suspense. Anyway, you are nit-picking. Read & trust every response Lars has made to you.
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463564 wrote: And what percent of the American, “Pro Gun - 2nd. Amendment-quoting population is characterized by your statement, do you think? Personally, I mean.
Probably much fewer than you would imagine.
The 2nd Amendment did not give people the right to bear arms. It simply protects that right from government abuse. And even if you could arrange a constitutional convention to retract the amendment, it would not abolish that right. It would simply remove the protection from government interfering with that right from the constitution.
You have the same right to bear arms. You and your fellow citizens simply have chosen to not exercise the right.
Probably much fewer than you would imagine.
The 2nd Amendment did not give people the right to bear arms. It simply protects that right from government abuse. And even if you could arrange a constitutional convention to retract the amendment, it would not abolish that right. It would simply remove the protection from government interfering with that right from the constitution.
You have the same right to bear arms. You and your fellow citizens simply have chosen to not exercise the right.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463566 wrote: Probably much fewer than you would imagine.
The 2nd Amendment did not give people the right to bear arms. It simply protects that right from government abuse. And even if you could arrange a constitutional convention to retract the amendment, it would not abolish that right. It would simply remove the protection from government interfering with that right from the constitution.
You have the same right to bear arms. You and your fellow citizens simply have chosen to not exercise the right.
So what would be required to legally - or constitutionally – or hell I don't know – make guns illegal in the U.S. or at least much better controll ..... legally?
The 2nd Amendment did not give people the right to bear arms. It simply protects that right from government abuse. And even if you could arrange a constitutional convention to retract the amendment, it would not abolish that right. It would simply remove the protection from government interfering with that right from the constitution.
You have the same right to bear arms. You and your fellow citizens simply have chosen to not exercise the right.
So what would be required to legally - or constitutionally – or hell I don't know – make guns illegal in the U.S. or at least much better controll ..... legally?
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463568 wrote: So what would be required to legally - or constitutionally – or hell I don't know – make guns illegal in the U.S. or at least much better controll ..... legally?
Excellent question. When we figure out the answer, I am sure the whole world will be much relieved.
To start with, though, I have often suggested that the NRA should return to its roots as an organization focused on firearm safety and education. That would be an excellent first step.
Excellent question. When we figure out the answer, I am sure the whole world will be much relieved.
To start with, though, I have often suggested that the NRA should return to its roots as an organization focused on firearm safety and education. That would be an excellent first step.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463569 wrote: Excellent question. When we figure out the answer, I am sure the whole world will be much relieved.
Well, let's put our heads together and work from the outside in. A revolution would be one way to destroy the system and replace it with a non-gun philosophy. But there must be a gentler remedy than that ..... no?
Well, let's put our heads together and work from the outside in. A revolution would be one way to destroy the system and replace it with a non-gun philosophy. But there must be a gentler remedy than that ..... no?
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463571 wrote: Well, let's put our heads together and work from the outside in.
Frankly, this is an internal issue, and cannot be resolved "From the outside in." but thanks for the offer.
High Threshold;1463571 wrote: A revolution would be one way to destroy the system and replace it with a non-gun philosophy. But there must be a gentler remedy than that ..... no?
That would certainly destroy the system, but I doubt that a "Non-gun philosophy" would be the result.
Nope, We are not going to easily be persuaded to give up our long-established rights, willingly. The world is going to have to learn to live with an armed North America, and hope that we become more civilized.
Frankly, this is an internal issue, and cannot be resolved "From the outside in." but thanks for the offer.
High Threshold;1463571 wrote: A revolution would be one way to destroy the system and replace it with a non-gun philosophy. But there must be a gentler remedy than that ..... no?
That would certainly destroy the system, but I doubt that a "Non-gun philosophy" would be the result.
Nope, We are not going to easily be persuaded to give up our long-established rights, willingly. The world is going to have to learn to live with an armed North America, and hope that we become more civilized.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463572 wrote: Frankly, this is an internal issue, and cannot be resolved "From the outside in." but thanks for the offer.
I don't mean "outside" in the international sense. I mean outside edge of what will definitely work and then work inwardly to what would be the least effort required to achieve the same result.
LarsMac;1463572 wrote: That would certainly destroy the system, but I doubt that a "Non-gun philosophy" would be the result.
I think one needs to see what is really on the table. Guns in the hands of the average American is (if you will allow me to speculate) the indirect product of an extreme Capitalist society (I'm thinking of poverty and the frustration it nurtures in the face of extreme wealth) and a culture of gun/hero glorification/worship. In addition to that, this trigger-happy violence isn't restricted to the U.S. but is exported by way of warmongering abroad ... again with American-style Capitalism at the helm.
So we're talking about millions upon millions of innocent dead internationally ... all perpetrated by the same source. The destruction of such a system, therefore, becomes more and more attractive not only for Americans, but for the benefit of all mankind.
LarsMac;1463572 wrote: The world is going to have to learn to live with an armed North America, and hope that we become more civilized.
Well OK, if you say so. But the U.S. isn't showing any real signs of waning in its murderous intent. They make a token slack in the killing and then come right back with a treacherous display of unprecedented mass killing (domestic and international) that defy even international law.
Isn't there a time when a "pre-emptive" solution is worth considering? I mean, how long do you think Americans, and the world, ought to wait for the U.S. to "become more civilized"? Does it even look as though it is moving in that direction? Or even at a steady pace?
I don't mean "outside" in the international sense. I mean outside edge of what will definitely work and then work inwardly to what would be the least effort required to achieve the same result.
LarsMac;1463572 wrote: That would certainly destroy the system, but I doubt that a "Non-gun philosophy" would be the result.
I think one needs to see what is really on the table. Guns in the hands of the average American is (if you will allow me to speculate) the indirect product of an extreme Capitalist society (I'm thinking of poverty and the frustration it nurtures in the face of extreme wealth) and a culture of gun/hero glorification/worship. In addition to that, this trigger-happy violence isn't restricted to the U.S. but is exported by way of warmongering abroad ... again with American-style Capitalism at the helm.
So we're talking about millions upon millions of innocent dead internationally ... all perpetrated by the same source. The destruction of such a system, therefore, becomes more and more attractive not only for Americans, but for the benefit of all mankind.
LarsMac;1463572 wrote: The world is going to have to learn to live with an armed North America, and hope that we become more civilized.
Well OK, if you say so. But the U.S. isn't showing any real signs of waning in its murderous intent. They make a token slack in the killing and then come right back with a treacherous display of unprecedented mass killing (domestic and international) that defy even international law.
Isn't there a time when a "pre-emptive" solution is worth considering? I mean, how long do you think Americans, and the world, ought to wait for the U.S. to "become more civilized"? Does it even look as though it is moving in that direction? Or even at a steady pace?
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463573 wrote: I don't mean "outside" in the international sense. I mean outside edge of what will definitely work and then work inwardly to what would be the least effort required to achieve the same result.
I think one needs to see what is really on the table. Guns in the hands of the average American is (if you will allow me to speculate) the indirect product of an extreme Capitalist society (I'm thinking of poverty and the frustration it nurtures in the face of extreme wealth) and a culture of gun/hero glorification/worship. In addition to that, this trigger-happy violence isn't restricted to the U.S. but is exported by way of warmongering abroad ... again with American-style Capitalism at the helm.
So we're talking about millions upon millions of innocent dead internationally ... all perpetrated by the same source. The destruction of such a system, therefore, becomes more and more attractive not only for Americans, but for the benefit of all mankind.
Well OK, if you say so. But the U.S. isn't showing any real signs of waning in its murderous intent. They make a token slack in the killing and then come right back with a treacherous display of unprecedented mass killing (domestic and international) that defy even international law.
Isn't there a time when a "pre-emptive" solution is worth considering? I mean, how long do you think Americans, and the world, ought to wait for the U.S. to "become more civilized"? Does it even look as though it is moving in that direction? Or even at a steady pace?
You just wandered way off into left field with that post, and I don't really see much to be gained by following you out there.
To connect our "Gun culture" to rampant Capitalism in the world, is a bit of a reach.
Just wait a while. It will become obvious in the not too distant future that Russia can offer a much better enforcer role in Europe than the US is capable of, and you all will abandon us.
I think one needs to see what is really on the table. Guns in the hands of the average American is (if you will allow me to speculate) the indirect product of an extreme Capitalist society (I'm thinking of poverty and the frustration it nurtures in the face of extreme wealth) and a culture of gun/hero glorification/worship. In addition to that, this trigger-happy violence isn't restricted to the U.S. but is exported by way of warmongering abroad ... again with American-style Capitalism at the helm.
So we're talking about millions upon millions of innocent dead internationally ... all perpetrated by the same source. The destruction of such a system, therefore, becomes more and more attractive not only for Americans, but for the benefit of all mankind.
Well OK, if you say so. But the U.S. isn't showing any real signs of waning in its murderous intent. They make a token slack in the killing and then come right back with a treacherous display of unprecedented mass killing (domestic and international) that defy even international law.
Isn't there a time when a "pre-emptive" solution is worth considering? I mean, how long do you think Americans, and the world, ought to wait for the U.S. to "become more civilized"? Does it even look as though it is moving in that direction? Or even at a steady pace?
You just wandered way off into left field with that post, and I don't really see much to be gained by following you out there.
To connect our "Gun culture" to rampant Capitalism in the world, is a bit of a reach.
Just wait a while. It will become obvious in the not too distant future that Russia can offer a much better enforcer role in Europe than the US is capable of, and you all will abandon us.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463575 wrote: You just wandered way off into left field with that post, and I don't really see much to be gained by following you out there.
I require nothing of you. I thought we were having a serious, but friendly discussion. That's all.
I require nothing of you. I thought we were having a serious, but friendly discussion. That's all.
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463576 wrote: I require nothing of you. I thought we were having a serious, but friendly discussion. That's all.
Well, yeah, I believe we are, as well.
Well, yeah, I believe we are, as well.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463553 wrote: Probably yes, but my point is if the constitution can be technically amended wouldn't the president's oath be a legal block? I don't want to be too dramatic but if a movement to amend the constitution were to be initiated it would come into direct confrontation with the president (his duty), which I suppose could be considered an attack on U.S. government, ie. a revolution.
Apparently not.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times
So far no amendment has radically changed how we govern ourselves.
We leave it to the three branches of government to just ignore it.
Apparently not.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times
So far no amendment has radically changed how we govern ourselves.
We leave it to the three branches of government to just ignore it.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
Amending the American Constitution:
Interesting facts.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463566 wrote:
You have the same right to bear arms. You and your fellow citizens simply have chosen to not exercise the right.
Wrong. We don't have a constitution. People here even talk of having the Right of Free Speech. We actually have no such right. Because they see it flouted about so much on US Media they seem to think we must have it too. I just hope we never end up adopting the American Gun Culture, along with all the other things that have totally screwed up our lives over here.
You have the same right to bear arms. You and your fellow citizens simply have chosen to not exercise the right.
Wrong. We don't have a constitution. People here even talk of having the Right of Free Speech. We actually have no such right. Because they see it flouted about so much on US Media they seem to think we must have it too. I just hope we never end up adopting the American Gun Culture, along with all the other things that have totally screwed up our lives over here.
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463627 wrote: Wrong. We don't have a constitution. People here even talk of having the Right of Free Speech. We actually have no such right. Because they see it flouted about so much on US Media they seem to think we must have it too. I just hope we never end up adopting the American Gun Culture, along with all the other things that have totally screwed up our lives over here.
You misunderstand what a right is, then.
I think I posted something earlier on the concept. A right is not something granted to you by a government, or through some piece of paper. A right is something that you have because you are a human being.
For many centuries, people with power managed to deny those rights to many people within their domain. And people often failed to grasp the rights that they had, and lived their live subject to the will of others.
We are slowly becoming enlightened and have grown to understand those rights, and over the last few centuries, slowly the people have begun to claim those rights, and force governments to acknowledge them.
Read the history of your country. It is a long story of the people and their struggle to claim those rights and limit the power your rulers could exercise over those rights. It is also the story of people learning how to share those rights, and which ones were they must sometimes relinquish in order to coexist. Your Magna Carta was one of the - if not THE - first English document to spell out the rights of the people and limit your monarchy's infringement of those rights. It was the beginning of the ideals that led to our revolution and establishment of our constitution.
You may choose not to exercise your rights for whatever reason you must, but that does not mean they are not yours.
You misunderstand what a right is, then.
I think I posted something earlier on the concept. A right is not something granted to you by a government, or through some piece of paper. A right is something that you have because you are a human being.
For many centuries, people with power managed to deny those rights to many people within their domain. And people often failed to grasp the rights that they had, and lived their live subject to the will of others.
We are slowly becoming enlightened and have grown to understand those rights, and over the last few centuries, slowly the people have begun to claim those rights, and force governments to acknowledge them.
Read the history of your country. It is a long story of the people and their struggle to claim those rights and limit the power your rulers could exercise over those rights. It is also the story of people learning how to share those rights, and which ones were they must sometimes relinquish in order to coexist. Your Magna Carta was one of the - if not THE - first English document to spell out the rights of the people and limit your monarchy's infringement of those rights. It was the beginning of the ideals that led to our revolution and establishment of our constitution.
You may choose not to exercise your rights for whatever reason you must, but that does not mean they are not yours.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Amending the American Constitution:
tude dog;1463625 wrote: Interesting facts.
While you and I may agree on the right to bear arms, I don't think we agree on the implementation.
We still need to have that conversation. There are far too many unnecessary deaths caused by ignorant or thoughtless gun owners in this country. One child accidentally shot is one too many. One innocent civilian killed is one too many.
Education and training need to be a part of this.
While you and I may agree on the right to bear arms, I don't think we agree on the implementation.
We still need to have that conversation. There are far too many unnecessary deaths caused by ignorant or thoughtless gun owners in this country. One child accidentally shot is one too many. One innocent civilian killed is one too many.
Education and training need to be a part of this.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463628 wrote: You misunderstand what a right is, then.
I think I posted something earlier on the concept. A right is not something granted to you by a government, or through some piece of paper. A right is something that you have because you are a human being.
For many centuries, people with power managed to deny those rights to many people within their domain. And people often failed to grasp the rights that they had, and lived their live subject to the will of others.
We are slowly becoming enlightened and have grown to understand those rights, and over the last few centuries, slowly the people have begun to claim those rights, and force governments to acknowledge them.
Read the history of your country. It is a long story of the people and their struggle to claim those rights and limit the power your rulers could exercise over those rights. It is also the story of people learning how to share those rights, and which ones were they must sometimes relinquish in order to coexist. Your Magna Carta was one of the - if not THE - first English document to spell out the rights of the people and limit your monarchy's infringement of those rights. It was the beginning of the ideals that led to our revolution and establishment of our constitution.
You may choose not to exercise your rights for whatever reason you must, but that does not mean they are not yours.
I know more about the People's Fight for Rights than you might think. After all, I am a direct descendant of James Brine - one of the original Tolpuddle Martyrs - the very first Trade Union.
We are all familiar how people have rights because they are Human Beings. Look how long we had to pay for Abu Hamza to live in luxury because of his 'Human Rights' not to be extradited to America to face Terrorist charges. We never wanted his sort over here, yet his 'Rights' as a Human Being superceded ours to live without the constant threat of suicide bomb attacks.
Rights CAN be taken away & all too often ARE taken away by Governments who, although Democratically voted in make decisions without consulting those who they are supposed to represent. The problem is that as a ruling Government, they have the RIGHT to do such things.
I don't even consider the Magna Carta to be a valid document as it was signed (or, to be more precise, sealed) under duress. Would your precious Constitution have the same validity had it been signed at gunpoint, because that's basically what the Magna Carta was.
I think I posted something earlier on the concept. A right is not something granted to you by a government, or through some piece of paper. A right is something that you have because you are a human being.
For many centuries, people with power managed to deny those rights to many people within their domain. And people often failed to grasp the rights that they had, and lived their live subject to the will of others.
We are slowly becoming enlightened and have grown to understand those rights, and over the last few centuries, slowly the people have begun to claim those rights, and force governments to acknowledge them.
Read the history of your country. It is a long story of the people and their struggle to claim those rights and limit the power your rulers could exercise over those rights. It is also the story of people learning how to share those rights, and which ones were they must sometimes relinquish in order to coexist. Your Magna Carta was one of the - if not THE - first English document to spell out the rights of the people and limit your monarchy's infringement of those rights. It was the beginning of the ideals that led to our revolution and establishment of our constitution.
You may choose not to exercise your rights for whatever reason you must, but that does not mean they are not yours.
I know more about the People's Fight for Rights than you might think. After all, I am a direct descendant of James Brine - one of the original Tolpuddle Martyrs - the very first Trade Union.
We are all familiar how people have rights because they are Human Beings. Look how long we had to pay for Abu Hamza to live in luxury because of his 'Human Rights' not to be extradited to America to face Terrorist charges. We never wanted his sort over here, yet his 'Rights' as a Human Being superceded ours to live without the constant threat of suicide bomb attacks.
Rights CAN be taken away & all too often ARE taken away by Governments who, although Democratically voted in make decisions without consulting those who they are supposed to represent. The problem is that as a ruling Government, they have the RIGHT to do such things.
I don't even consider the Magna Carta to be a valid document as it was signed (or, to be more precise, sealed) under duress. Would your precious Constitution have the same validity had it been signed at gunpoint, because that's basically what the Magna Carta was.
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463631 wrote: I know more about the People's Fight for Rights than you might think. After all, I am a direct descendant of James Brine - one of the original Tolpuddle Martyrs - the very first Trade Union.
Then you do understand that our rights should not be negotiable.
FourPart;1463631 wrote: We are all familiar how people have rights because they are Human Beings. Look how long we had to pay for Abu Hamza to live in luxury because of his 'Human Rights' not to be extradited to America to face Terrorist charges. We never wanted his sort over here, yet his 'Rights' as a Human Being superceded ours to live without the constant threat of suicide bomb attacks.
Problem with rights. For us to expect ours to be protected, we must respect the same rights for even those we hate.
FourPart;1463631 wrote: Rights CAN be taken away & all too often ARE taken away by Governments who, although Democratically voted in make decisions without consulting those who they are supposed to represent. The problem is that as a ruling Government, they have the RIGHT to do such things.
Rights are not taken away by the government. The government may suppress your rights, or abuse your rights, and trample on them, but they are still yours to claim and fight for, or to surrender. And we do often surrender our rights to some things in order to co-exist with other. But it should always be up to each of us to determine what we shall claim, and what we will surrender. "Pick you battles" I think applies.
FourPart;1463631 wrote: I don't even consider the Magna Carta to be a valid document as it was signed (or, to be more precise, sealed) under duress. Would your precious Constitution have the same validity had it been signed at gunpoint, because that's basically what the Magna Carta was.
Ah yes. Poor King John. Such a tragedy. He must have been devastated to be forced to sign that document. I am sure that Henry Ford felt the same way when he signed an agreement with the union. And Mr Pullman, as well, must have felt betrayed by the gods.
Then you do understand that our rights should not be negotiable.
FourPart;1463631 wrote: We are all familiar how people have rights because they are Human Beings. Look how long we had to pay for Abu Hamza to live in luxury because of his 'Human Rights' not to be extradited to America to face Terrorist charges. We never wanted his sort over here, yet his 'Rights' as a Human Being superceded ours to live without the constant threat of suicide bomb attacks.
Problem with rights. For us to expect ours to be protected, we must respect the same rights for even those we hate.
FourPart;1463631 wrote: Rights CAN be taken away & all too often ARE taken away by Governments who, although Democratically voted in make decisions without consulting those who they are supposed to represent. The problem is that as a ruling Government, they have the RIGHT to do such things.
Rights are not taken away by the government. The government may suppress your rights, or abuse your rights, and trample on them, but they are still yours to claim and fight for, or to surrender. And we do often surrender our rights to some things in order to co-exist with other. But it should always be up to each of us to determine what we shall claim, and what we will surrender. "Pick you battles" I think applies.
FourPart;1463631 wrote: I don't even consider the Magna Carta to be a valid document as it was signed (or, to be more precise, sealed) under duress. Would your precious Constitution have the same validity had it been signed at gunpoint, because that's basically what the Magna Carta was.
Ah yes. Poor King John. Such a tragedy. He must have been devastated to be forced to sign that document. I am sure that Henry Ford felt the same way when he signed an agreement with the union. And Mr Pullman, as well, must have felt betrayed by the gods.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463627 wrote: ..... I just hope we never end up adopting the American Gun Culture, along with all the other things that have totally screwed up our lives over here.
Coca Cola? Baseball caps? TV adverts every bloody 10 minutes? The use of the word "basically" at the start of every sentence? "Nigga" handshakes that last half the day?
Coca Cola? Baseball caps? TV adverts every bloody 10 minutes? The use of the word "basically" at the start of every sentence? "Nigga" handshakes that last half the day?
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463676 wrote: Coca Cola? Baseball caps? TV adverts every bloody 10 minutes? The use of the word "basically" at the start of every sentence? "Nigga" handshakes that last half the day?
When I first went to Europe, 1969, "you people" did not have Jeans! People would stop me on the street & literally beg me to buy my pants (the very ones I was currently wearing, thank you------what they expected me to walk around in I don't know). This went on until you guys learned to make them, or import them, on your own. Years I think. We're not to blame for you guys being copycats & we guys being trendsetters. Get your own Kardashians---wait---you got them but call them The Royal Family.
HT, the N word not acceptable. Surprised your version got through. P.C.
When I first went to Europe, 1969, "you people" did not have Jeans! People would stop me on the street & literally beg me to buy my pants (the very ones I was currently wearing, thank you------what they expected me to walk around in I don't know). This went on until you guys learned to make them, or import them, on your own. Years I think. We're not to blame for you guys being copycats & we guys being trendsetters. Get your own Kardashians---wait---you got them but call them The Royal Family.
HT, the N word not acceptable. Surprised your version got through. P.C.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
AnneBoleyn;1463684 wrote: When I first went to Europe, 1969, "you people" did not have Jeans! People would stop me on the street & literally beg me to buy my pants (the very ones I was currently wearing, thank you------what they expected me to walk around in I don't know). This went on until you guys learned to make them, or import them, on your own. Years I think. We're not to blame for you guys being copycats & we guys being trendsetters. Get your own Kardashians---wait---you got them but call them The Royal Family.
HT, the N word not acceptable. Surprised your version got through. P.C.
Basically, I'll try to remember that next time I'm rushing to the kitchen during a commercial break to fetch a Cuba Cola from the Swedish-invented fridge, wearing a John Lennon hat on my head, Gul & Blå jeans on my torso and träskor on my feet. Basically, I mean.
BTW: How are those Swedish-invented zippers working out for "you people"? And what about the Swedish invented .... oh hell ... just click:
But how silly of me! You're talking about Europe in general, not only Sweden. Sorry!
HT, the N word not acceptable. Surprised your version got through. P.C.
Basically, I'll try to remember that next time I'm rushing to the kitchen during a commercial break to fetch a Cuba Cola from the Swedish-invented fridge, wearing a John Lennon hat on my head, Gul & Blå jeans on my torso and träskor on my feet. Basically, I mean.
BTW: How are those Swedish-invented zippers working out for "you people"? And what about the Swedish invented .... oh hell ... just click:
But how silly of me! You're talking about Europe in general, not only Sweden. Sorry!
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
I'm so happy to recommend the following novel to you, HT--The Brief History of the Dead by Kevin Brockmeier. I found it so imaginative & entertaining & in it the earth's population is destroyed by............Coca Cola! Here is an excerpt:
"A deadly virus has spread rapidly across Earth, effectively cutting off wildlife specialist Laura Byrd at her crippled Antarctica research station from the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the planet's dead populate "the city," located on a surreal Earth-like alternate plane, but their afterlives depend on the memories of the living, such as Laura, back on home turf.................................Other subplots are equally convincing and reflect on relationships in a beautiful, delicate manner; the book seems to say that, in a way, the virus has already arrived."
Great read.
The Brief History of the Dead: Kevin Brockmeier: 9781400095957: Amazon.com: Books
"A deadly virus has spread rapidly across Earth, effectively cutting off wildlife specialist Laura Byrd at her crippled Antarctica research station from the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the planet's dead populate "the city," located on a surreal Earth-like alternate plane, but their afterlives depend on the memories of the living, such as Laura, back on home turf.................................Other subplots are equally convincing and reflect on relationships in a beautiful, delicate manner; the book seems to say that, in a way, the virus has already arrived."
Great read.
The Brief History of the Dead: Kevin Brockmeier: 9781400095957: Amazon.com: Books
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
PS--neither of us can really 'brag' since almost everything is made in China these days! Bet your John Lennon hat was made there!
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
AnneBoleyn;1463694 wrote: I'm so happy to recommend the following novel to you, HT
And I'm equally thrilled that you did!
AnneBoleyn;1463694 wrote:
Great read.
I can see that by the excerpt you've provided. I am going to look at it. Thanks!
And I'm equally thrilled that you did!
AnneBoleyn;1463694 wrote:
Great read.
I can see that by the excerpt you've provided. I am going to look at it. Thanks!
Amending the American Constitution:
Jeans were invented by a European - Levi Strauss. Besides, they were intended as cheap, tough, long lasting working wear, not fashion boutique rubbish that's only designed to last as long as the fickleness of fashion (i.e. a few weeks) before they fall apart - then there's the bizarreness of buying jeans that are pre-made so that they already falling apart. Where is the sense in that?
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463716 wrote: Jeans were invented by a European - Levi Strauss. Besides, they were intended as cheap, tough, long lasting working wear, not fashion boutique rubbish that's only designed to last as long as the fickleness of fashion (i.e. a few weeks) before they fall apart - then there's the bizarreness of buying jeans that are pre-made so that they already falling apart. Where is the sense in that?
I have been wearing Jeans since I was 4 or 5.
Every now and again, I am "in style"
(The topic drift is quite fascinating)
I have been wearing Jeans since I was 4 or 5.
Every now and again, I am "in style"
(The topic drift is quite fascinating)
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463721 wrote: I have been wearing Jeans since I was 4 or 5.
Ever since the European - Levi Strauss brought them to America?
Ever since the European - Levi Strauss brought them to America?
Amending the American Constitution:
AnneBoleyn;1463684 wrote: When I first went to Europe, 1969, "you people" did not have Jeans! People would stop me on the street & literally beg me to buy my pants (the very ones I was currently wearing, thank you------what they expected me to walk around in I don't know). This went on until you guys learned to make them, or import them, on your own. Years I think. We're not to blame for you guys being copycats & we guys being trendsetters.
If they were asking to buy your pants in the UK.....then there might have been a language problem, we wear pants under our jeans.
So if they were wanting you out of your pants you may have misunderstood them.
Were your jeans well worn with torn knees, or tassels or wide bell bottoms ?
You talk of trendsetters.....let me remind you.
Embarrassing now.
If they were asking to buy your pants in the UK.....then there might have been a language problem, we wear pants under our jeans.
So if they were wanting you out of your pants you may have misunderstood them.
Were your jeans well worn with torn knees, or tassels or wide bell bottoms ?
You talk of trendsetters.....let me remind you.
Embarrassing now.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
High Threshold;1463722 wrote: Ever since the European - Levi Strauss brought them to America?
They were not brought to America by the good Mr Straus. They were invented in America by one of his employees.
And both he and his employee were Americans at the time.
They were not brought to America by the good Mr Straus. They were invented in America by one of his employees.
And both he and his employee were Americans at the time.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463716 wrote: Jeans were invented by a European - Levi Strauss. Besides, they were intended as cheap, tough, long lasting working wear, not fashion boutique rubbish that's only designed to last as long as the fickleness of fashion (i.e. a few weeks) before they fall apart - then there's the bizarreness of buying jeans that are pre-made so that they already falling apart. Where is the sense in that?
Every American is an immigrant, or comes from elsewhere on the family tree except the Native Americans. Every last one. How's this? Levi Strauss was a Jew. I must add him to my list of "Jews Who Have Totally Changed the World". The first on my list is Jesus.
Your point Mr. Strauss was from Europe means little, as he made his mark here---in the U.S.A. I doubt he would have been as successful in his home shtetl. That's why he left & came here.
Every American is an immigrant, or comes from elsewhere on the family tree except the Native Americans. Every last one. How's this? Levi Strauss was a Jew. I must add him to my list of "Jews Who Have Totally Changed the World". The first on my list is Jesus.
Your point Mr. Strauss was from Europe means little, as he made his mark here---in the U.S.A. I doubt he would have been as successful in his home shtetl. That's why he left & came here.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
Lars & I had same thought at the same time!!
Amending the American Constitution:
AnneBoleyn;1463760 wrote: Every American is an immigrant, or comes from elsewhere on the family tree except the Native Americans. Every last one. How's this? Levi Strauss was a Jew. I must add him to my list of "Jews Who Have Totally Changed the World". The first on my list is Jesus.
Your point Mr. Strauss was from Europe means little, as he made his mark here---in the U.S.A. I doubt he would have been as successful in his home shtetl. That's why he left & came here.
For the record, Not only was Levi a Jew, but so was the employee who actually designed the Jeans that made Herr Strauss so famous.
Jacob W. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your point Mr. Strauss was from Europe means little, as he made his mark here---in the U.S.A. I doubt he would have been as successful in his home shtetl. That's why he left & came here.
For the record, Not only was Levi a Jew, but so was the employee who actually designed the Jeans that made Herr Strauss so famous.
Jacob W. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Amending the American Constitution:
AnneBoleyn;1463761 wrote: Lars & I had same thought at the same time!!
Great minds think alike, eh?
Great minds think alike, eh?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463763 wrote: Great minds think alike, eh?
Speaking humbly -- yes!
Speaking humbly -- yes!
Amending the American Constitution:
Most of the UK is made up of Immigrants as well. Vikings... Romans... Normans... Saxons...
It seems that Jeans were about in the 1500s & Jeans is actually from the French for them. Just because a designer updates & commercialises someone else's creation, doesn't make it his.
HISTORY OF DENIM
It seems that Jeans were about in the 1500s & Jeans is actually from the French for them. Just because a designer updates & commercialises someone else's creation, doesn't make it his.
HISTORY OF DENIM
Amending the American Constitution:
FourPart;1463780 wrote: Most of the UK is made up of Immigrants as well. Vikings... Romans... Normans... Saxons...
It seems that Jeans were about in the 1500s & Jeans is actually from the French for them. Just because a designer updates & commercialises someone else's creation, doesn't make it his.
HISTORY OF DENIM
Thanks for that. Learn something new every day.
But then, while the cloth has been around for centuries, it was the American application of said cloth that launched the trend.
The fascinating part of all this is that the ingenuity of humans from all over the world became focused here in the Americas and resulted in some pretty marvelous inventions and applications, not to mention some very notable 'Firsts'.
But now, too many people want to rest on their laurels, so to speak, and take credit for the great things that resulted from the genius of the past generations.
It seems that Jeans were about in the 1500s & Jeans is actually from the French for them. Just because a designer updates & commercialises someone else's creation, doesn't make it his.
HISTORY OF DENIM
Thanks for that. Learn something new every day.
But then, while the cloth has been around for centuries, it was the American application of said cloth that launched the trend.
The fascinating part of all this is that the ingenuity of humans from all over the world became focused here in the Americas and resulted in some pretty marvelous inventions and applications, not to mention some very notable 'Firsts'.
But now, too many people want to rest on their laurels, so to speak, and take credit for the great things that resulted from the genius of the past generations.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
LarsMac;1463759 wrote: They were not brought to America by the good Mr Straus.
Yes, I know. I was joking, incorporating an earlier statement made by Four Part.
Yes, I know. I was joking, incorporating an earlier statement made by Four Part.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Amending the American Constitution:
AnneBoleyn;1463760 wrote: Your point Mr. Strauss was from Europe means little, as he made his mark here---in the U.S.A.
That's funny. Often when I mention that Charles Lindbergh was a Nazi, most Americans try to deny the connection by saying that he was Swedish.
That's funny. Often when I mention that Charles Lindbergh was a Nazi, most Americans try to deny the connection by saying that he was Swedish.