Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
781 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Comrades:

Americans have always been proud of having a Bill of Rights in their Constitution. But it's always seemed to me the document was missing something: A Bill of No-Rights. Just for balance and symmetry. And to give the Government proper Authority to control its wayward citizens, who might run off and do God-knows-what godawful things without its benevolent "guidance."

I've always thought the Constitution was a pansy document, because nowhere in it have we ever said: The people of this country have NO right to (fill in the blank). It has always in its bourgeois flabbiness stipulated rights we DO have.

It has taken a visionary President to finally come around to my way of thinking, and I'm proud that Geo. Bush has proposed the first of what I hope will be 10 good, solid amendments in a visionary Bill of No-Rights.

Thought experiment: What will be the other nine? What other rights do you think the great George Bush would like to Constitutionally stipulate that you don't have?

Off to a faculty meeting -
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
You're confusing "rights" with ....

"laws". Get that straightened out and you may better understand how this government was intended to work and what it provides for. Your transparent little rant about gay marriage has no basis. The "law" will define what a marriage is according to what the majority of Americans believe it to be. I didn't know a "right" was granted by the Constitution, for men to marry men and women to marry women. I didn't read that anywhere. As a matter of fact most, if not all state laws, say a marriage is between a man and a women. I believe there are those that wish to change what is already the law of the land - not vice versa. I agree that a Constitutional amendment shouldn't be necessary, but there are activist elected officials that want to take the laws into their own hands, necessitating this action by the President and Congress, to prevent chaos from ensuing.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Hey since the mayor of SF feels ...

he's entitled to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples because he believes the law is wrong, maybe our mayor here in NYC will issue carry permits to anyone who wants one. I mean at least he's covered by the Constitution. I am sure you would have no problem with that.

Oh, for the record, I actually believe that gays should be allowed to marry, though I think it's odd that they want to embrace a traditional tenet of our society that for so long, they have tried to distance themselves from. My real problem is with how Newsom is going about this.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
"no rights"

RedMenace said:
Comrades:

Americans have always been proud of having a Bill of Rights in their Constitution. But it's always seemed to me the document was missing something: A Bill of No-Rights. Just for balance and symmetry. And to give the Government proper Authority to control its wayward citizens, who might run off and do God-knows-what godawful things without its benevolent "guidance."

I've always thought the Constitution was a pansy document, because nowhere in it have we ever said: The people of this country have NO right to (fill in the blank). It has always in its bourgeois flabbiness stipulated rights we DO have.

It has taken a visionary President to finally come around to my way of thinking, and I'm proud that Geo. Bush has proposed the first of what I hope will be 10 good, solid amendments in a visionary Bill of No-Rights.

Thought experiment: What will be the other nine? What other rights do you think the great George Bush would like to Constitutionally stipulate that you don't have?

Off to a faculty meeting -
As an academic exercise, not necessarily taking a position here, there are provisions of the Constitution that at least arguably curtail rights of people, not just the government; I think largely the Constitution does not *grant* rights, but instead prohibits the government from curtailing or interfering with rights -- admittedly a subtle difference, but important one (9th Amendment notwithstanding).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei

1. The 13th Amendment prohibits people from owning slaves.

2. The 19th Amendment prohibited manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor -- repealed, of course.

3. The 20th Amendment prohibits a President from serving a 3rd term.

4. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 prohibits foreign born people and those under 35 years old from being President (age restrictions on members of Congress and Senate, too).

5. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 prohibits officials from accepting titles of nobility without consent of Congress.

This proposed amendment, I think, doesn't really remove an existing right, as that right has not been established, unless you argue that it is a "natural" or "inaliable" right (which would be an interesting argument). It's more a counter to what is belived to be rogue officials and activist courts.

Nonetheless, I don't think it will pass. I still believe that gay marriage is inevitable, and it would not bother me in the slightest. Heck, it probably means more income for divorce lawyers!
 

·
Unlabeled
Joined
·
3,720 Posts
Bush Bill of no Rights

XXVIII. Marriage is a lifelong monogomous relationship between 1 virgin man and 1 virgin woman. Queers, adulterers, fornicators and the divorced cannot be married.

XXIX. Health care is an earned priveledge. It is not the government's responsibilty to provide healthcare to the lazy or incompetent.

XXX. Pornagraphy is hereby banned.

XXXI. There is freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.

XXXII. There is no right to a clean environment.

XXXIII. There is no right to a safe work place.

XXXIV. Governement is not instituted to preserve the natural resources of the nation.

XXXV. Future generations have no freedom from debts incurred by the current government.

XXXVI. Any power not explicitely stated herein is hereby granted to corporations with market capital exceeding $1 billion.

XXXVII. All rights of citizens can be suspended in case of national emergency as determined by the President, if he is a Republican. If the President is not a Republican, the national emergencies will be defined by the highest ranking Republican in the Senate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
I'll give you wit points for that one ;-)

Continental said:
XXVIII. Marriage is a lifelong monogomous relationship between 1 virgin man and 1 virgin woman. Queers, adulterers, fornicators and the divorced cannot be married.

XXIX. Health care is an earned priveledge. It is not the government's responsibilty to provide healthcare to the lazy or incompetent.

XXX. Pornagraphy is hereby banned.

XXXI. There is freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.

XXXII. There is no right to a clean environment.

XXXIII. There is no right to a safe work place.

XXXIV. Governement is not instituted to preserve the natural resources of the nation.

XXXV. Future generations have no freedom from debts incurred by the current government.

XXXVI. Any power not explicitely stated herein is hereby granted to corporations with market capital exceeding $1 billion.

XXXVII. All rights of citizens can be suspended in case of national emergency as determined by the President, if he is a Republican. If the President is not a Republican, the national emergencies will be defined by the highest ranking Republican in the Senate.
Good work. Sometimes good mockery can be funny, even if you don't agree with it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
funny contradiction

RedMenace said:
Comrades:

Americans have always been proud of having a Bill of Rights in their Constitution. But it's always seemed to me the document was missing something: A Bill of No-Rights. Just for balance and symmetry. And to give the Government proper Authority to control its wayward citizens, who might run off and do God-knows-what godawful things without its benevolent "guidance."

I've always thought the Constitution was a pansy document, because nowhere in it have we ever said: The people of this country have NO right to (fill in the blank). It has always in its bourgeois flabbiness stipulated rights we DO have.

It has taken a visionary President to finally come around to my way of thinking, and I'm proud that Geo. Bush has proposed the first of what I hope will be 10 good, solid amendments in a visionary Bill of No-Rights.

Thought experiment: What will be the other nine? What other rights do you think the great George Bush would like to Constitutionally stipulate that you don't have?

Off to a faculty meeting -
After reviewing your handle and sign-off slogan, it strikes me funny that a professed "Marxist" would be griping about curtailment of rights in the U.S. Whether in practice or theory, Marxists aren't exactly Civil Libertarians.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
I have GLBT clients who are very split on the issue.

A couple of older clients have always maintained that marriage is part *straight* culture that they as *liberated* human beings have always disdained. They don't seem to care one way or the other about the current gay marriage brouhaha. Some others (they're younger) see this as a matter of fundamental civil rights and are extremely exercised about it. I'm not sure there's a monolithic gay position on this as a general proposition but a move for a contstitutional amendment will almost certainly bring all the sides together.
 

·
Every little counts...
Joined
·
3,924 Posts
Hmmm.

Troyboy said:
and a stupid one at that.
"To be considered stupid and to be told so is more painful than being called gluttonous, mendacious, violent, lascivious, lazy, cowardly: every weakness, every vice, has found its defenders, its rhetoric, its ennoblement and exaltation, but stupidity hasn't."
-- Primo Levi

I guess calling someone stupid trumps all argument.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Oh, I'm sorry Boytoy. I know how much you crave

attention as a result of past abuse. Again let me offer to help. Help is available. This darkness can lift.

So how's tricks with the Inhalants for Breakfast Bunch? You and your *special* friend bill get a good snootful this a.m.?

LOL! LOL! Good stuff!!!!

How's that?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Oh now go easy on Boytoy

Spunout said:
"To be considered stupid and to be told so is more painful than being called gluttonous, mendacious, violent, lascivious, lazy, cowardly: every weakness, every vice, has found its defenders, its rhetoric, its ennoblement and exaltation, but stupidity hasn't."
-- Primo Levi

I guess calling someone stupid trumps all argument.
He's a deeply disturbed individual. He's really not responsible. This is the best he can do. He needs our support.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
None of this makes sense.

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone cares about this issue. I can't understand why gays would want to be *married,* as long as their legal rights are protected under civil unions (which Bush says he supports) and I can't understand why anyone else gives a ratsh*t whether a couple of homosexuals exchange some vows and called themselves married -- what skin off anyone's nose?

America would be a lot better off if two things happened:

1) Some people stopped whining

2) Other people kept their noses out of other people's private business
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
Libertarians?

TiJeanKerouac said:
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone cares about this issue. I can't understand why gays would want to be *married,* as long as their legal rights are protected under civil unions (which Bush says he supports) and I can't understand why anyone else gives a ratsh*t whether a couple of homosexuals exchange some vows and called themselves married -- what skin off anyone's nose?

America would be a lot better off if two things happened:

1) Some people stopped whining

2) Other people kept their noses out of other people's private business
Too bad more people aren't Libertarians, or at least think more that way.

However, a true Libertarian would likely want to keep the government out of the marriage sanctioning business entirely.
 

·
Unlabeled
Joined
·
3,720 Posts
I'm still voting for Bush in 2004,and did in 2000.

I'm just exaggerating some of my differences with him and having a little fun trying to stoke the board.

Now will someone voting for Kerry please make fun of his positions, lack thereof, or waffling? Won't happen I'm sure.
 

·
With the Radio On...
Joined
·
965 Posts
If those are your differences what do you agree on? Wow.

I find it hard to believe principled traditional conservatives would vote for these guys. Don't you think your part'y been co-opted by a rather extreme version of conservatism?? Let your party know you won't stand for it. Make a difference: vote Libertarian! (and tell your friends to too)

As for Kerry, I wouldn't shred him any more than any other flip-flopping, opinion changing politician (which is a lot, btw). But I would vote for him well before this Bush, easily. Bush appears disinterested and cavalier about his job.

(Good list)


Continental said:
I'm just exaggerating some of my differences with him and having a little fun trying to stoke the board.

Now will someone voting for Kerry please make fun of his positions, lack thereof, or waffling? Won't happen I'm sure.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
In what way does Bush display his ...

disinterest? I can understand a liberal seeing him as cavalier, but disinterested?
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top