user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I ask this question because I grow increasingly concerned at the hold the ultra religious right has on our President and his administration. Bush and his team invoke the Constitution when it suits thir best interests: they want to ammend the Constitution regarding marriages. Yet, they ignore the purpose of the seperation of Church and State because they clearly let the Pat Roberston's, the Ralph Reed's and scarily, the Jerry Falwell's of this world influence them. Isn't that hypocritical? Why do the ultra-conservatives feel it's okay to allow these right-wing religious extremists to have so much influence over our government? People should have religious freedom, but if the President himself allows his policies to be influenced by these people, isn't that violating the Constitution?
that is why they allowed ammendments to the constitution, because founding fathers reconized things change.
I think it should be rigid because you wouldn't be able to read anything if it was written on some type of fluid. *rolls eyes at anyone who mocks this comment*
I agree with you, patch, in that the evangelicals have too much of an influence over Mister Bush. Separation of Church and State- I don't think the Founding Fathers bothered to write it down just because it looked good on paper...
If it's fluid then doesn't it lose all meaning? What's the point of having these basic rights and limitations set down in stone if they can simply be erased whenever expedient?
My God, I agree with larrynelmira.
No Herzog, it does not lose all meaning if it is a fluid document; it actually loses all meaning if it is a rigid document that is not kept alive as times change. If we followed it to the letter, we would find ourselves way behind the times. Amendments mean that to a degree it is fluid. What it is NOT meant to be though, is a tool for Bush and his ultra-conservative clan to ram through divisive and discriminatory legislation. Bush is paranoid! He has allowed the Christian fundamentalists too much influence over himself and his administration and those folks are sick, twisted and evil. I am a Christian and I can assure you, they do NOT represent my religion. They have bastertized Christianity and they are lying, cheating and manipulative con-men who have duped countless people. If they had their way, they would ammend the Constitution to the point that if you're not a white, protestant person, you're not really an American. Make no mistake, the moment that Bush tried to invoke the Constitution to get his agenda across, he lost me totally. I fear for this nation under his administration.
The people who drafted the constitution believed that all humans have "inalienable" rights that stem from God. I wouldn't have though that these people believed that these inalienable rights would have to change very much.
Under Bush the Fourth Amendment from the Bill of Rights no longer protects US citizens from unreasonable searches of their homes. All because of a terrorist organisation that was created by Americans themselves. See 1984.
Patch: amendments no more change the basic structure and meaning of the constitution than a coat of varnish changes the basic structure and function of a piece of wood. As long as the basic rights are enforced (first 10 amendments) and the structure of the government is maintained then the document is being used properly.
Herzog: you make a very good point...I like that analogy!! :)
Danke schon.
|
|
