4 ms·

So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly abou

So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.

X86BSD 10y ago
This is not uncommon for those like the above poster that think the constitution is a "living document".
- gnaritas 10y ago
  That isn't a matter of "thought", it's a matter of fact. The constitution defines itself as a living document through its amendment procedures.
gnaritas 10y ago
No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Without the notion that the rules can and do change for each generation, we'd still have slaves, thankfully, we don't live under a set of rules that can never be changed. The will of the majority, and especially the super majority, is far better a thing to live under than the will of a handful of people from 238 years ago and any suggestion to the contrary is the definition of not thinking clearly.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  "you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution" - oh really? Please open a US history book.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gnaritas2 10y ago
    Please try and think for 2 seconds instead of responding to the first stupid idea that jumps into your brain; obviously I'm referring to passing such a law today, what happened historically isn't relevant. But you've shown your colors, you have no intention of actually hearing anything said to you because you're more interested in arguing utterly stupid diversions of the main topic. You ignored everything said except the one thing you could find to disagree with, you're a child. Goodbye.
    - Randgalt 10y ago
      It can easily happen again. You're the fool for thinking it can't.
    - dang 10y ago
      As we've told you many times, you can't comment like this here. And certainly you can't create separate accounts to do it with. I've banned this one. You're a longstanding user and we've bent over backwards not to ban you, despite serious abuses on your part. The situation isn't going to stay this way.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        You're being absurd, all I said was "no you're not thinking clearly" in response to being accused of not thinking clearly. I was perfectly civil, and I created another account because of your unjustified slow ban on me. I've bent over backward conforming to your absolutely inhuman and ridiculous civility rules that expect people to never ever ever have the slightest conflict with one another. I behaved fine, check yourself, I didn't start this conflict, he did. As you seem to be dying to ban me, then ban me already; I'll just bounce through a proxy and open another account, you know as well as I do there's really nothing you can do to keep me off the site and that your best option is to keep me civil, which I've been doing for quite a while, so drop the empty threats please.
  - 10y ago
st3v3r 10y ago
So you'd be perfectly ok with certain people being counted as only 3/5 of a person, and only white, landowning males having the right to vote? What about that whole slavery thing? Cause the Constitution shouldn't be changed and all.

So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.

X86BSD 10y ago

This is not uncommon for those like the above poster that think the constitution is a "living document".

gnaritas 10y ago
That isn't a matter of "thought", it's a matter of fact. The constitution defines itself as a living document through its amendment procedures.

gnaritas 10y ago

No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Without the notion that the rules can and do change for each generation, we'd still have slaves, thankfully, we don't live under a set of rules that can never be changed. The will of the majority, and especially the super majority, is far better a thing to live under than the will of a handful of people from 238 years ago and any suggestion to the contrary is the definition of not thinking clearly.

Randgalt 10y ago
"you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution" - oh really? Please open a US history book.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gnaritas2 10y ago
  Please try and think for 2 seconds instead of responding to the first stupid idea that jumps into your brain; obviously I'm referring to passing such a law today, what happened historically isn't relevant. But you've shown your colors, you have no intention of actually hearing anything said to you because you're more interested in arguing utterly stupid diversions of the main topic. You ignored everything said except the one thing you could find to disagree with, you're a child. Goodbye.
  - Randgalt 10y ago
    It can easily happen again. You're the fool for thinking it can't.
  - dang 10y ago
    As we've told you many times, you can't comment like this here. And certainly you can't create separate accounts to do it with. I've banned this one. You're a longstanding user and we've bent over backwards not to ban you, despite serious abuses on your part. The situation isn't going to stay this way.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      You're being absurd, all I said was "no you're not thinking clearly" in response to being accused of not thinking clearly. I was perfectly civil, and I created another account because of your unjustified slow ban on me. I've bent over backward conforming to your absolutely inhuman and ridiculous civility rules that expect people to never ever ever have the slightest conflict with one another. I behaved fine, check yourself, I didn't start this conflict, he did. As you seem to be dying to ban me, then ban me already; I'll just bounce through a proxy and open another account, you know as well as I do there's really nothing you can do to keep me off the site and that your best option is to keep me civil, which I've been doing for quite a while, so drop the empty threats please.
- 10y ago

st3v3r 10y ago

So you'd be perfectly ok with certain people being counted as only 3/5 of a person, and only white, landowning males having the right to vote? What about that whole slavery thing? Cause the Constitution shouldn't be changed and all.