PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of slippery slopes and degrading freedoms



DixieJeeper
04-24-2012, 10:54 AM
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-amend-first-amendment


Seems like the witch bag can't stand on her own two feet and broom stick so she wants to muzzle those who decent (at the corporate level ONLY) of course we would never take a little freedom away then a while later take more... yea right.

I am a staunch supporter of any/all of my and yoru rights- the minute one fails or is weakened the next is that much easier to weaken or take the next away.

SirFuego
04-24-2012, 11:13 AM
Trying to get 75% support from state legislatures on such a controversial topic will never happen.

Honestly, it'd probably just be easier for a controversial bill to pass with a basic majority and hope that the Supreme Court doesn't shoot it down.

DixieJeeper
04-24-2012, 11:26 AM
Admendments are by design nearly impossible to pass- and thankfully so. I understand that fact but it isn't the fact that I am afraid it will pass, it the fear that there are a notable amount of people in congress that think this is a GOOD idea... thats the scary part.

Admendments might be hard to pass but if ignorant masses buy into something anything is possible when the ignorant masses are stirred up into a frenzy. In example I give you,

1) 18th admendment
2) 17th admendment

SirFuego
04-24-2012, 11:47 AM
18th amendment was eventually repealed. So honestly, I don't consider the 18th amendment to be a failure -- I think it was a huge success to be honest (at least with respect to constitutional history, not with respect to its intended purpose). It just demonstrated that the constitution was never meant to be perfect, but that it is able to "correct itself" even if it is amended improperly.

I admittedly don't know much about the 17th amendment, but it's my understanding that the previous method of selected senators (by state legislature) was wrought with corruption. However, since I'm relatively ignorant to the genesis of events for that amendment, I don't know how much that was blown out of proportion.

The fact that people in Congress support this doesn't concern me. I understand the reason for them wanting this, but "give someone an inch and they'll take a mile" always comes to mind on topics like this. Not everyone thinks that way, so it's understandable that some folks would support it. The 75%, by design, goes with the theory that something is inherently needed since it's unlikely that so many folks would be wrong about it. I wish ALL federal bills needed to pass with a 2/3 majority in at least the senate for that exact reason, but such a gov't would not be as dynamic as the one today which means that it would be much much smaller than many folks feel it should be.