• 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 Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

James972 said:
why broader when liberal govt was the source of evil in human history and when liberals always want more liberal govt. Note the progression from Hillary to Sanders! 1+1=2
Click to expand...

:lamo

oh right, that wasn't a joke...you're actually serious...


:doh
 
ElChupacabra said:
:lamo

oh right, that wasn't a joke...you're actually serious...


:doh
Click to expand...

Yes, liberals always want larger govt to correct the failures of the previous liberal govt. That is how liberals got from JFK to Sanders communism with no shame, no sense of treason, just pure and perfect ignorance!!
 
James972 said:
Yes, liberals always want larger govt to correct the failures of the previous liberal govt. That is how liberals got from JFK to Sanders communism with no shame, no sense of treason, just pure and perfect ignorance!!
Click to expand...

Mmmhmm

:liar
 
DebateChallenge said:
This is the purpose of the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights does not grant rights rather it re-enforces rights that are granted by God or some higher power according to the beliefs of the founders of the USA. Since its a belief I cannot prove that there is a God that grants such rights but that's what the founders believed. Anyway, that being said the purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to prohibit the government from restricting the rights it mentions and if it were to do so than the government would have too much authority. Simply put, the government does not have the authority to infringe on the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights and its not supposed to. That is why, unlike the rest of the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any part of it can't be repealed and is scribed in stone. To repeal or change it would give the government too much authority and would thus result in a corrupt government. That is why the Bill Of Rights has to be respected and kept the way it is. For the government to infringe on any of the rights in the Bill Of Rights in doing so the government would be crossing a line it has no right to cross.
Click to expand...

Did you know that, at the time the Bill of Rights was being debated, a Bill of Wrongs was also being debated? The first one passed. The second one didn't. However, the first 10 amendments are amendments, which can also be subjected to change. IMHO, the 14th Amendment is just as important as the first 10.
 
danarhea said:
IMHO, the 14th Amendment is just as important as the first 10.
Click to expand...

??? on what basis could you possibly compare them and determine which is most important?? Absurd!!
 
James972 said:
??? on what basis could you possibly compare them and determine which is most important?? Absurd!!
Click to expand...

Not hard at all. A law that recognizes black Americans as people and gives them equal rights is just as important as the first 10. Actually, what the 14th does is to say that inalienable rights apply to all races, not just white people. Without the 14th Amendment, the first 10 is nothing more than words on paper, because people are allowed to cherry pick who gets those rights, which is exactly what they did during the era of slavery. Black people were not people. They were property with no rights whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Not hard at all. A law that recognizes black Americans as people and gives them equal rights is just as important as the first 10.
Click to expand...

totally absurd!! on what basis could you possibly compare????
 
danarhea said:
Did you know that, at the time the Bill of Rights was being debated, a Bill of Wrongs was also being debated?
Click to expand...

didn't know that. Do you have evidence or just BS??
 
danarhea said:
Did you know that, at the time the Bill of Rights was being debated, a Bill of Wrongs was also being debated? The first one passed. The second one didn't. However, the first 10 amendments are amendments, which can also be subjected to change. IMHO, the 14th Amendment is just as important as the first 10.
Click to expand...

He meant to post ...a Bill of Wongs.....it was this Chinese dude that wanted equal rights for his people too....LOL



DebateChallenge said:
This is the purpose of the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights does not grant rights rather it re-enforces rights that are granted by God or some higher power according to the beliefs of the founders of the USA. Since its a belief I cannot prove that there is a God that grants such rights but that's what the founders believed. Anyway, that being said the purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to prohibit the government from restricting the rights it mentions and if it were to do so than the government would have too much authority. Simply put, the government does not have the authority to infringe on the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights and its not supposed to. That is why, unlike the rest of the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights or any part of it can't be repealed and is scribed in stone. To repeal or change it would give the government too much authority and would thus result in a corrupt government. That is why the Bill Of Rights has to be respected and kept the way it is. For the government to infringe on any of the rights in the Bill Of Rights in doing so the government would be crossing a line it has no right to cross.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha !....and how is that working out for ya?....Like Spooner said, paraphrasing,....... either the constitution gave us the government we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it, in either case, it is unfit to exist......

Let me see if I can end this 51 page debacle you all seem to think is a debate... There are no such things as rights. Can anyone here, prove that they have a right?

A right is defined as a legal claim. Do you have a legal claim to do anything? No.

The CONstitution is nothing more than four pieces of parchment with the scribblings of the insane on it, that thought they had the "right" to tell other people how they should live their lives. It is the same today with your so called legislators thinking they have the same right. All of it is nothing but opinions, and in case most of you do not know it, opinions are not admissible as evidence in court. (expert opinions aside, such as ballistics experts, DNA, etc.)

So a SCOTUS "opinion" is evidence of nothing. It is inadmissible as evidence! So when someone tells you they have a right to freedom of speech, or to bear arms, ask them to prove it. The Socratic method of asking questions will always pull the truth out. Keep six honest men in your pocket at all times, and use them.
Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom