- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Justice Steven's proposed 6 amendments to the constitution
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:51 am
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:51 am
LINK
He wants to end gerrymandering and political bribery protected under free speech. He wants to rewrite the 2nd amendment for clarity.
I agree with his version of the 2nd amendment. The original 2nd amendment is ambiguous and poorly written and therefore has been badly misinterpeted.
I don't agree that the death penalty is cruel and unusual.
He wants to end gerrymandering and political bribery protected under free speech. He wants to rewrite the 2nd amendment for clarity.
I agree with his version of the 2nd amendment. The original 2nd amendment is ambiguous and poorly written and therefore has been badly misinterpeted.
I don't agree that the death penalty is cruel and unusual.
15
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:52 am to samson'sseed
Is he running for congress?
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:54 am to samson'sseed
He should just call for erasing state boundaries while he's at it.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:55 am to samson'sseed
His rationale for the Second Amendment change doesn't make sense to me. Why would they include a "right" limited to soldiers bearing arms? It would seem purely superfluous.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:55 am to BBONDS25
The Supreme Court is already in the make law mode anyways. Proposals are fine as long as those do not affect the future interpretations of existing law.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 7:58 am to samson'sseed
quote:
He wants to end gerrymandering
why is he so racist?
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:03 am to samson'sseed
quote:Minorities wont like that.
He wants to end gerrymandering
quote:Unnecessary because it's not now.
bribery protected under free speech
Gotta love number 1. Might as well eliminate states altogether. That he can't foresee why this could end up poorly is an indictment upon his intellect.
His militia amendment is just downright hilarious. Easily the dumbest one of them all.
One could just as easily rename this list and call it "things this fricking idiot already thinks are IN the constitution but wants to spell out".
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:04 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
His rationale for the Second Amendment change doesn't make sense to me. Why would they include a "right" limited to soldiers bearing arms? It would seem purely superfluous.
If you read the list as hims proposing Amendments, then it's nonsense.
If you understand the list to be what it really is, it makes more sense I suppose.
This list is really how the man already determined his rulings. He isn't telling us he thinks this should be added. He's telling you what he already thinks is there and that he ruled based upon this for the duration of his career.
Basically, he's telling you how meaningless ANY constitution is as long as someone like him can get on the court.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:06 am to themunch
The Supreme Court decision on the interpretation of the 2nd has already been decided and rarely do they bring up a case after a decision is made
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:06 am to ShortyRob
quote:
He wants to end gerrymandering
Bye bye Republican party.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:08 am to Lakeboy7
I agree with the 2nd amendment revision. End gerrymandering is OK. Get rid of state boundaries I have said that for years. No need for states
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:08 am to ShortyRob
quote:
If you read the list as hims proposing Amendments, then it's nonsense.
If you understand the list to be what it really is, it makes more sense I suppose.
This list is really how the man already determined his rulings. He isn't telling us he thinks this should be added. He's telling you what he already thinks is there and that he ruled based upon this for the duration of his career.
Basically, he's telling you how meaningless ANY constitution is as long as someone like him can get on the court.
This is sort of why I was speaking to his rationale. He actually thinks he can rectify his position from a historical perspective of the framers' intent, but if you think about it, it is just completely nonsensical that they would include a "right" for such a purpose.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:08 am to Lakeboy7
quote:I think it hilarious that there are apparently people walking this Earth who must be too young or too poorly educated to know that gerrymandering was created in the first place to guarantee black seats in congress. Now it's a "Republican" thing!!
Bye bye Republican party.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:08 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:Yes, but you'd probably all good with a King as long as he stole from the right people.
I agree with the 2nd amendment revision. End gerrymandering is OK. Get rid of state boundaries I have said that for years. No need for states
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:09 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Bye bye Republican party.
it would be interesting
but minority representation would be drastically affected. that's why most gerrymandering occurs
who benefits? white republicans surrounding those areas of minority concentration. just look at Louisiana
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:10 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I think
Stopped right there. Google republican house district maps.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:11 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Yep. By definition, anyone IN the militia would be Armed and expected to be armed. Why on Earth would you even need to articulate that as a right. No one articulates a "right" to something that literally NO ONE would even attempt to prevent. That would make for one seriously long constitution.
He actually thinks he can rectify his position from a historical perspective of the framers' intent, but if you think about it, it is just completely nonsensical that they would include a "right" for such a purpose.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:12 am to samson'sseed
His second amendment proposal is crap and absolutely doesn't rely on the original intent..
As for the campaign finance amendment.. I'm not opposed to something to curtail the issue but the usage of the word
"reasonable" just sets itself up for a challenge. You would think a Supreme Court justice would want solidity to a constitutional amendment.. Especially considering he wants it in other amendments.
As for the campaign finance amendment.. I'm not opposed to something to curtail the issue but the usage of the word
"reasonable" just sets itself up for a challenge. You would think a Supreme Court justice would want solidity to a constitutional amendment.. Especially considering he wants it in other amendments.
This post was edited on 5/2/14 at 8:15 am
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:12 am to Lakeboy7
quote:I didn't say there aren't any hilarious Repub districts. I'm amused that you don't know what started it all.
Stopped right there. Google republican house district maps.
And, as has been pointed out, an elimination of gerrymandering would effectively kill the Congressional Black caucus.
I mean, you do know that don't you?
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:14 am to TROLA
quote:
I'm not opposed to something to curtail the issue but the usage of the word
"reasonable" just sets itself up for a challenge. You would think a Supreme Court justice would want to solidity to a constitutional amendment.. Especially considering he wants it in other amendments.
Actually, no, I would fully expect a Supreme Court justice to be THRILLED with an ambiguous word like "reasonable". It basically puts POWER in the hands of the court and completely removes it from the legislature because the court gets to decide what "reasonable" means.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News