Which amendments do you view favorably?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 23, 2025, 04:00:14 AM
News: Election Calculator 3.0 with county/house maps is now live. For more info, click here

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, KaiserDave)
  Which amendments do you view favorably?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Which amendments do you view favorably?
#1
1st-Freedom of speech, etc.
 
#2
2nd-Right to bear arms
 
#3
3rd-Quartering soldiers
 
#4
4th-Search and seizure
 
#5
5th-Due Process
 
#6
6th-Criminal Trials
 
#7
7th-Civil Trials
 
#8
8th-Excessive Punishment
 
#9
9th-Unenumerated Rights
 
#10
10th-Reserved Powers
 
#11
11th-Lawsuits against states
 
#12
12th-Presidential Elections
 
#13
13th-Abolition of slavery
 
#14
14th-Equal Protection
 
#15
15th-Voting Rights
 
#16
16th-Income Tax
 
#17
17th-Direct Election of Senators
 
#18
18th-Prohibition
 
#19
19th-Woman's Suffrage
 
#20
20th-Inauguration Day
 
#21
21st-Repeal of Prohibition
 
#22
22nd-Presidential Term Limits
 
#23
23rd-DC Electors
 
#24
24th-Abolition of the poll tax
 
#25
25th-Presidential succession
 
#26
26th-Lowering Voting Age
 
#27
27th-Congressional Pay Raises
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which amendments do you view favorably?  (Read 2177 times)
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2005, 09:03:22 PM »

I fail to see your point. Specifically writing an amendment that protects petition, assembly, printed word, spoken word, and religious freedom would be suitable. Having an amendment worded so badly as to prohibit by the interpretation of some to deny the display of holiday decorations or to protect burning a flag simply makes no sense.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2005, 09:07:45 PM »


it basically still does exist, our taxpayer money goes into welfare checks to support you.

Anyone who thinks that the income tax is equivalent to slavery needs to go get enslaved so they can marvel at the remarkable amount of freedom they actually do have despite the government taking some of their earnings to provide them with public goods. Tongue
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2005, 09:19:18 PM »

Well, we still do have conscription, which, I suppose, is a form of slavery or involuntary servitude.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2005, 09:29:26 PM »


it basically still does exist, our taxpayer money goes into welfare checks to support you.

Anyone who thinks that the income tax is equivalent to slavery needs to go get enslaved so they can marvel at the remarkable amount of freedom they actually do have despite the government taking some of their earnings to provide them with public goods. Tongue

I never said anything about an income tax, did I Gabu?  I simply it's slavery when my money goes to fund opebo in the amount of a check. 
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2005, 09:33:22 PM »

I fail to see your point. Specifically writing an amendment that protects petition, assembly, printed word, spoken word, and religious freedom would be suitable. Having an amendment worded so badly as to prohibit by the interpretation of some to deny the display of holiday decorations or to protect burning a flag simply makes no sense.

well, I agree that making people take down Christmas decorations is completely stupid and irrelevant.  However, flag burning does qualify as symbolic speech.  Yet I do agree that it should be worded more clearly.  The founding fathers were too busy being pretentious f--kers with trying to make the Constitution "art-like" then they were about clarifying specifics.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 8 queries.