Originally posted by witeasprinwow

---

I think it should be mentioned that Congress can over-rule the Supreme Court in this area by getting a 66% (2/3rds) majority in both houses, allowing them to pass a Constitutional amendment, which is something the Courts cannot challenge.

And it's the President that appoints the Supreme Court members, so it's not just like we got some bums off the street and called them the Supreme Court.

Also, the President can pardon people who break these kinds of laws.

Of course, if neither group exercises their checks and balances, then yes, the Supreme Court is pretty much in control.

---

Originally posted by beneficii

---

I thought it was after 2/3 of each house of Congress passed it, it goes to either the state legislatures or conventions appointed by each of the state legislatures and 3/4 of either of them must approve it. Also, there is another way for a constitutional amendment to be proposed to the states: A constitutional convention. If 2/3 of the state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention, then according to Article 5 of US Constitution, one must be called. The constitutional convention itself would have the power to propose amendments to the states and even theoretically have the power to propose a new constitution.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

"Studies show that private charity is more effective than government beaurocracy."

Which studies?

---

Originally posted by Tommathy

---

Further on the subject of assembly, why couldn't a group of individuals contract with eachother to share their resources equally a la communism? It would basically an (albeit extreme) extension of the concept of a co-op, consortium, or corporation, where large groups of people pool their resources for profit, except these people would be pooling *all* of their resources. If a person chooses to voluntarily surrender their assets to a commune, who are we to stop them?

On the subject of speech: what falls under the purview of "anti-government" speech? Do you simply mean pro-anarchy commentary or criticism of the government in power?

On the outlawing of cults: again, I'm no fan of the JWs either, but should the government really be taking my hard-earned money away from me to arrest and jail a bunch of praying wackos who don't want blood transfusions?

Before I discuss social welfare, what falls under this guise? Unemployment benfits? Food stamps? Tax breaks for dependents? Social security? Free/Reduced school lunch? Education?

And finally, the Fourth Amendment? Really? Would this only be the government that can waltz into your house whenever they want, or could I drop by anytime too? Are merely saying that society should be completely transparent to the government, or that we should all be comepletely transparent to eachother?

---

Originally posted by Tommathy

---

Why ||bass, I never took you for the "Think globally, act locally" type.

That's kinda nifty.

---

Originally posted by Vyper

---

against:
homosexuality

---

Originally posted by Vyper

---

Basically, people should be able to whatever the fuck they want so long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

---

Originally posted by Thoughtless

---

Originally posted by AMazur

---

Well I have managed two posts in the same topic. I may as well post a second time rather than edit the previous one because no will read the first one......

.........

---

But...||bass said five nominations.

Max.

How could you miss that? Twice?

---