Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

However, the supreme court could rule that you aren't a US citizen unless you have a child every 2 years starting at the age of 18 and ending at 36.

Bingo. You don't qualify as a US citizen unless you contribute genetically to the birth of a child every 4 years between the ages of 18 and 38.

 

If it is clearly presented, then it should. Or the courts aren't doing their job by upholding the constitution.

 

Amendments can be made. As they should be since we shouldn't live by rules made forever ago. Times and things change.

 

The constitution doesn't grant rights. It restricts government. It is not supposed to be specific. If a government act or law can be seen to be violating a given amendment it is not constitutional.

We can't be expected to list every item that is protected. The constitution would have to be updated millions of times per year. Everything that can be covered is protected (or, at least, is supposed to be).

 

i 100% agree. But wouldn't that be the focus if something isnt working?

 

I'm not sure what you are arguing. I said i wouldn't be surprised if some day there is a limit to how many kids people can have. There are clearly more immediate issues at hand than that.

 

There is no equal equivalency between someone saying a bad word and someone not having control over their own body.

 

First, id like to state, i do not think we are arguing but having a healthy discussion?

There are more immediate issues at hand, but you brought this issue up.

my point stands on all issues though. Instead of pointing fingers and ridiculing those with other beliefs, wouldn't it be more productive to work on the constitution with amendments?

The focus on belittling and pointing fingers at those with different opinions is not as productive as working on the constitution to deny those with certain beliefs, the ability to act on them, wouldn't you agree?

 

Not when it has to deal with things that can create harm to another human being. Restricting healthcare is one of those things that people should be ridiculed for if they are restricting medically necessary procedures.

 

Understood. I just see that as a never ending spiral downwards of pointing fingers with nothing gained but wasted time and increased aggression. I see a much more productive solution would be to focus on adjusting/updating the constitution to deny them the ability to instill their beliefs on others.
Not sure how that wouldn’t be a priority over ridicule? Im positive you would get more results faster that way then trying to ridicule someone into having the same beliefs as you?

 

You can't have discussions with these people. They went fully off the deep end.

While it would still piss many people off, a better discussion would have been, unless medically necessary, no abortions after say 24 weeks (since that is the boogie man the right has in regards to abortions. That people are just killing babies for fun right before birth). But no. They have to just outlaw this stuff and say ridiculous shit like they will cure rape so there won't need to be abortions from rape anymore.

They don't want to negotiate. They want to control people.

Texas should make a law next that dudes can't ejaculate unless it is specifically inside a woman for baby making. But they won't. While it would restrict gay dudes (something they would like) it would restrict themselves from ejaculating and wouldn't control women rights so they wouldn't be interested.

Those monsters deserve ridicule.

 

Miss me yet?

 

If the result of you acting to remove restrictions on states is that those states automatically impose restrictions then you are choosing to impose those restrictions.

Let's try a cuter comparison.
Scar didn't kill Mufasa, he just restricted his right to hold on to the cliff. Whatever happens after that is no fault of his own...

Kinda silly.

If the result of your action is known and predetermined, then you are at fault for taking that action.

 

I am saying why bother? Unless you are referring to elected officials capable of making these changes and those are the ones not able to have a conversation with?

why even try to have a convo if the majority feels the same as you and a constitutional amendment can be made to lock your opinion in?

 

Cats will never marry dogs as much as you'd want that to happen.

 

Because people taking human rights to healthcare away deserve ridicule. People pushing this bullshit need to know they suck.

 

The laws disagree with you though. You didnt respond to my analogy on this topic.