• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Bill Of Wrongs.

Chainsaw

Chainsaw

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
790
Reaction score
359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
THE BILL OF WRONGS

Amendment I

Congress shall make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and may constrain the free exercise thereof; and limiting free speech and the press; and suppressing the right of the people to assemble, and to discourage the people from petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well armed Constabulary, being necessary to the subjugation of a spirit of freedom, the privilege of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed and modified.

Amendment III

The people shall be required to compensate the Government for the cost of goods and services provided to non-citizens, and the Government may extract and disburse such in a manner to be prescribed politically.

Amendment IV

The right of the Government to inspect the people in their persons, houses, and effects, and if necessary without their knowledge, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall issue in secret courts without due process or support by Oath or affirmation, execution of which shall be broad and at the discetion of authorities.

Amendment V

Any person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without due process of law; and any person shall be subject to prosecution by any level of Government, simultaneously or consecutively, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense more than once if necessary; and be compelled to submit biological samples for any criminal case in order to be a witness against himself, and may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused may be held for lengthy periods before a trial, and tried by a jury generally unfamiliar with law in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, with the nature and cause of the accusation to be obscured as the Government deems necessary; with the use of Government negotiated witness arrangements that may benefit the accusers and/or prosecuting attorneys; and to have qualified Assistance of Counsel for his defense based on ability to pay.

America's 'New' Bill Of "Wrongs" | Zero Hedge

Obama's government. Ignore the 1st, Appeal the 2nd, and then the rest is for the taking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a steaming pile of excretement. Someone seems to have a lot of time on their hands.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
What a steaming pile of excretement. Someone seems to have a lot of time on their hands.
Click to expand...

Obama is on the record as saying the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties. Does that sound like someone that would intend to preserve and protect the Constitution? Rational people would say no. And now this latest threat by Lynch to prosecute anti-muslim rhetoric? What does that trend say to you homes?
 
Chainsaw said:
Obama is on the record as saying the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties. Does that sound like someone that would intend to preserve and protect the Constitution? Rational people would say no. And now this latest threat by Lynch to prosecute anti-muslim rhetoric? What does that trend say to you homes?
Click to expand...

Not worried one bit.

Not into hysterical hyperbole based on hearsay and pontificated opinions.
 
The proper corollary to the Bill of Rights would be a Bill of Responsibilities which would include the duty of Congress to protect the lives of innocent civilians.
 
Chainsaw said:
THE BILL OF WRONGS

Amendment I

Congress shall make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and may constrain the free exercise thereof; and limiting free speech and the press; and suppressing the right of the people to assemble, and to discourage the people from petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well armed Constabulary, being necessary to the subjugation of a spirit of freedom, the privilege of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed and modified.

Amendment III

The people shall be required to compensate the Government for the cost of goods and services provided to non-citizens, and the Government may extract and disburse such in a manner to be prescribed politically.

Amendment IV

The right of the Government to inspect the people in their persons, houses, and effects, and if necessary without their knowledge, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall issue in secret courts without due process or support by Oath or affirmation, execution of which shall be broad and at the discetion of authorities.

Amendment V

Any person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without due process of law; and any person shall be subject to prosecution by any level of Government, simultaneously or consecutively, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense more than once if necessary; and be compelled to submit biological samples for any criminal case in order to be a witness against himself, and may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused may be held for lengthy periods before a trial, and tried by a jury generally unfamiliar with law in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, with the nature and cause of the accusation to be obscured as the Government deems necessary; with the use of Government negotiated witness arrangements that may benefit the accusers and/or prosecuting attorneys; and to have qualified Assistance of Counsel for his defense based on ability to pay.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, the well provisioned litigant shall have numerous opportunites to appeal, and litigants may be compelled to utilize non-judicial forums as compelled by extra-judicial organizations to settle disputes.

Amendment VIII

Bail may encompass a variety of fees including, but not limited to, charges for self internment and monitoring, re-education and counseling; and private prisons may determine if and when sentencing is extended without show of cause in a court of law.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall reflect the Government's ability to diminish or expand, as necessary, the rights of the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the States by the Constitution, or to the people, are reserved to the United States.

America's 'New' Bill Of "Wrongs" | Zero Hedge

Obama's government. Ignore the 1st, Appeal the 2nd, and then the rest is for the taking.
Click to expand...

that's repeal
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Not worried one bit.

Not into hysterical hyperbole based on hearsay and pontificated opinions.
Click to expand...

Obama's belief/statement that the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties is hyperbole?
 
Heinrich said:
The proper corollary to the Bill of Rights would be a Bill of Responsibilities which would include the duty of Congress to protect the lives of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

The sole purpose of government is to protect the liberties of innocent civilians.
 
Chainsaw said:
THE BILL OF WRONGS

Amendment I

Congress shall make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and may constrain the free exercise thereof; and limiting free speech and the press; and suppressing the right of the people to assemble, and to discourage the people from petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.

<deleted for brevity>

America's 'New' Bill Of "Wrongs" | Zero Hedge

Obama's government. Ignore the 1st, Appeal the 2nd, and then the rest is for the taking.
Click to expand...
There's a great deal I agree with, here. (nearly all)

But I think your assigning blame solely to President Obama is falling a bit short - both party's leadership share much of this ideology, with only a few differences between them (gun control & NSA/police state, for example).
 
Heinrich said:
The proper corollary to the Bill of Rights would be a Bill of Responsibilities which would include the duty of Congress to protect the lives of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine how the congress would protect lives. I'm not coming up with anything.
 
Chainsaw said:
Obama's belief/statement that the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties is hyperbole?
Click to expand...
Obama in 2001 correctly stated that the Constitution limits govt actions against the individual, it is funny that cons would deny that. But then some folks rely on out of context to make false argument.

OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Obama in 2001 correctly stated that the Constitution limits govt actions against the individual, it is funny that cons would deny that. But then some folks rely on out of context to make false argument.

OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
Click to expand...

That sounds downright Reaganesque.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That sounds downright Reaganesque.
Click to expand...
Except.....when the rest of the quote comes into play....


OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Except.....when the rest of the quote comes into play....


OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that
Click to expand...

Well, the redistribution of wealth part does sound a bit more like Bernie Sanders, but the part about the Constitution limiting what the government can do is more like what Reagan would have said.

Or maybe Goldwater. He was more of a libertarian than Reagan ever was.

And he's right on: The Constitution was not written to limit individual liberty, but to limit what the government can do that might limit that liberty.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The Constitution was not written to limit individual liberty, but to limit what the government can do that might limit that liberty.
Click to expand...
But the point is.....NOT EXCLUSIVELY, which is what the OP is trying to argue by intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said......which is probably the result of not finding the original quote and instead relies on Glenn Beck bs.
 
fmw said:
I'm trying to imagine how the congress would protect lives. I'm not coming up with anything.
Click to expand...
How about passing a law forbidding the sale of assault weapons and large clips of bullets to any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
But the point is.....NOT EXCLUSIVELY, which is what the OP is trying to argue by intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said......which is probably the result of not finding the original quote and instead relies on Glenn Beck bs.
Click to expand...
Obama's words are more interesting when filtered through the mouths of people like Glenn Beck.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
But the point is.....NOT EXCLUSIVELY, which is what the OP is trying to argue by intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said......which is probably the result of not finding the original quote and instead relies on Glenn Beck bs.
Click to expand...

It was in the context of Obama wanting to and believing the liberal big-government elites should try/be able to break-free of those pesky Constitutional restraints that it places on the power of government,.........was not that the gist of the OP/Bill of Wrongs?
 
Chainsaw said:
Obama is on the record as saying the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties. Does that sound like someone that would intend to preserve and protect the Constitution? Rational people would say no. And now this latest threat by Lynch to prosecute anti-muslim rhetoric? What does that trend say to you homes?
Click to expand...
Chainsaw said:
It was in the context of Obama wanting to and believing the liberal big-government elites should try/be able to break-free of those pesky Constitutional restraints that it places on the power of government,.........was not that the gist of the OP/Bill of Wrongs?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that hate speech was Constitutionally guaranteed, just as speech to incite or yelling "fire" in a theater is protected speech. Where did you get the idea that speech was absolute?
 
Chainsaw said:
Obama is on the record as saying the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties. Does that sound like someone that would intend to preserve and protect the Constitution? Rational people would say no. And now this latest threat by Lynch to prosecute anti-muslim rhetoric? What does that trend say to you homes?
Click to expand...

Obama is on the record as saying the Constitution is a Charter Of Negative Liberties.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see that record.
 
Heinrich said:
How about passing a law forbidding the sale of assault weapons and large clips of bullets to any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
Click to expand...


They already did that years ago. It didn't change anything.
 
Heinrich said:
How about passing a law forbidding the sale of assault weapons and large clips of bullets to any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
Click to expand...

I can see you know absolutely nothing about our Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom