Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPic Of The Moment: Have You Noticed...?
Rubio proposes constitutional amendment to invalidate ObamaCare mandate
Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court
Santorum Calls For A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage
A Good Chunk Of GOP Field Wants To Repeal The 14th Amendment
Here's What the Presidential Candidates Had to Say About Reproductive Rights in the First GOP Debate
"There are like 10 things I would change in the Constitution with a magic wand."
Follow @demunderground
randys1
(16,286 posts)non white christian male millionaires.
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)Last election cycle, they wanted to repeal the 17th Amendment which allows for citizens to vote for Senators instead of having them appointed by State Legislators.
But they sure cling to that 2nd Amendment like it was written by God
niyad
(113,250 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)at the ringing of that constitutional bell, have little or no idea of how torturous, complex and time-consuming it is to change the Constitution. They believe that their man can come in and "WHAMO-BANG" wave their penis wands and it will be done. Idiots.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)underpants
(182,755 posts)Apparently Laura Ingraham was trumpeting this to Greta Vanwhatever
Scuba
(53,475 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)underpants
(182,755 posts)and will suck up 10-20% of news talk with the "well you know, some people say...." BS
BruceStern
(13 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Trump thinks he cane get rid of the 14th and deport all non-citizens. Huckabee and Paul want to extend the 14th to fertilized eggs. Cruz may have some issues about his Canadian birth.
Cruz's issue raises the question of "Natural Born Citizen". Regardless of one's opinion, a fertilized egg has not been born, therefore can not be a natural born citizen, so does the 14th amendment apply to them? And since they are not citizens, Trump wants to deport them.
If one must be a citizen for the constitution to apply, how can a corporation have 1st amendment rights?
underpants
(182,755 posts)to add "HELL YEAH!"
Paladin
(28,252 posts)Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)Only to me it sounded like they wanted to add YEEEeeeeeeeeeeeHAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaw
underpants
(182,755 posts)At the Koch brothers place.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Would it be unfair to ask them that question?
radhika
(1,008 posts)Essentially, they'd want to a new one that nullifies Marbury v Madison. That case ruled that SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land. The'dy want to use any future legislative majorities to impose whatever policies they pass without judicial review.
They'd also want to affirm in an amendment what they and their funders most believe: Corporations are indeed people.
Both of these are necessary to set Plutocracy in stone.
niyad
(113,250 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)he doesn't start singing 50 Cent's Magic Stick.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)in favor of making their own Republican party version, complete with crayons and copies of the bible.
merrily
(45,251 posts)to incorporate all of Islamic law by reference--and there is not even one source of definitive Islamic law--IOW, no equivalent of, say, the Pope, who is a final authority on what is Catholic and what isn't.
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)amendments are exactly how the constitution is supposed to be changed and the process is spelled out in detail. The framers obviously expected future generations to make changes and gave us a way of doing that democratically. I don't think following the rules to amend the constitution is disrespecting it or failing to defend it. It's how the process is supposed to work. Ignoring what is written now or trying to make changes improperly (like extreme judicial interpretations) is another matter.
I don't agree with any of the amendments suggested in the OP of course, but I don't fault them for the idea of changes generally. I can think of a couple I'd consider making too (ERA comes to mind).
merrily
(45,251 posts)louis-t
(23,291 posts)Republicans LOVE the Constitution, except for the parts they want to change.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Cuz we can't trust the gubbermint!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Ignoring the Constitution is a problem. Amending is very difficult, but, if successful, not a problem.
We would like amendments as well; and I don't see a thing wrong with talking a lot about the Constitution. IMO, we don't do that enough.
However, the amendments they want are a problem.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)the other, they have no respect for what's written in the document! It's hilarious!
asjr
(10,479 posts)fellows would want to do in the 21st century. I am still amazed at the crazy acts now.
I wish we had acted quickly after the theft in year 2000.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And Al Gore should have stood his ground--he was damned if he did/damned if he didn't.
czarjak
(11,266 posts)Republican version.
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)speaks volumes about their total lack of REAL character, but then everything else they say and do does likewise.
[link:?resize=256%2C173|
Fritz Walter
(4,291 posts)What a bunch of whores!
And shameless ones at that.
ion_theory
(235 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)nuke
valerief
(53,235 posts)give food/shelter to the needy. The GOP talk about the deficit and spend the most. The GOP talk about the "sanctity" of marriage and have no problems with multiple divorces. They're the Reverso party. Everything they say is the reverse of what they do.
3catwoman3
(23,971 posts)...today, and he re-iterated his rationale for why an embryo cannot/should not be granted the same rights as someone who has already been born. He explains it thusly:
An embryo can be frozen, thawed later and implanted into a woman's uterus and healthy baby may result.
Can you freeze a 1 minute old newborn and thaw it out later and have a healthy baby? No.
A caller had a similar scenario. You are in a lab with a living 6 year old child, and a box of 20 frozen embryos. A fire breaks out in the lab, and you can save only the child or the box of frozen embryos - not both. Which do you save as you go running out of the flame-engulfed lab?