Originally posted by RaventheOnly
😐 my parents did not teach me this. Debate class did. 😐 Opinion is a major factor in swaying the people who read this, without it one has no stance.People don't like me because they get frustrated and try to wheel out of the conversation. 98+% of the time.
You remind me of sophists from ancient greece, the first ever "philosophers" if you can call them that.
All they focussed on was winning the argument whether they were right or not 😕
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Change your attitude, and maybe that wouldn't happen so often 😉(That ****ing annoying smilie thing is a MAJOR part in that by the way, one here or there is fine, but you ****ing put a smilie on every sentence it seems)
my attitude in anyway has no grounds at all. I always begin with a statement and the response determines my attituded. 😐
And get over the childly annoyance of smilies. if you concentrate on them too much you lose brain cells apparently.
Originally posted by silver_tears
You remind me of sophists from ancient greece, the first ever "philosophers" if you can call them that.
All they focussed on was winning the argument whether they were right or not 😕
😱 😊 that is the nicest comment ever 😊 😛 Philosophes 😛
They believed they were right and used the field of arguementation as an art. EVRYTHING was placed in the hands of skill and nothing more.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
No, only in the point of slavery which was technically not even a federal power, what made it a federal power ironically was commerce between the states, regulated by the government. The South knew all the loop holes and that was one of the powerfullest until the Abolisionists found the commerce stance. if it were not for that the states could legally without federal control locally have slaves as long as it were confined to the designated territories. So therefore you do not understand fully the point you claimed was yours.
My original point was that there was no way the state would force religion upon it's civilians, because of the reprocussions. Which you apparently skipped over that part.
Any major reprocussions that did occur, would not go overlooked by the federal government, and they would intervene.
They're called "Amendments" not "concrete-laws-that-can-never-be-changed"
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Change your attitude, and maybe that wouldn't happen so often 😉(That ****ing annoying smilie thing is a MAJOR part in that by the way, one here or there is fine, but you ****ing put a smilie on every sentence it seems)
Thank you! Something about it that just seems to say "I'm right, you're a dumbass, why do you even bother trying?" when put in the right context.
.
RTO, you have absolutely NO reason to believe that people don't like you because they are less effective at debating. People don't like you because, for the billionth time, every post you make simply seems to say "I'm right, so shut up and sit down".
I wasn't being serious about the parents thing. Maybe I should use [/sarcasm] tags around you, since you take everything so seriously. Obviously opinion is valid in debates, but again, for the billionth time, OPINION AND FACT CAN NEVER EVER EVER BE TREATED AS IF THEY ARE EQUAL! Fact will ALWAYS be more valid than opinion. I can say "Bush sucks", but it means nothing unless I back it up with fact. Problem with you is that you never seem to differentiate between fact and your opinions. A lot of what you post is true, but to somebody who knew nothing about the topic, your posts would seem to be 100% factual, since that is how you present the information.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
My original point was that there was no way the state would force religion upon it's civilians, because of the reprocussions. Which you apparently skipped over that part.Any major reprocussions that did occur, would not go overlooked by the federal government, and they would intervene.
They're called "Amendments" not "concrete-laws-that-can-never-be-changed"
A state can force what is in its right to regulate. Education was at one point regulated b the states, Marrage is regulated by the states, drivers licences are regulated in part by the states, speed limits are regulated on non-federal highways, if Cali wanted to make a speed limit that said 100+MPH on a short in state only road they could and the Feds CAN"T DO CRAP, for its not in thier right to regulate it unless the road led out of the state.
Amendments are near concrete laws that can almost never be changed. 😛 Thats why it takes another amendment to cancel another out.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
A state can force what is in its right to regulate. Education was at one point regulated b the states, Marrage is regulated by the states, drivers licences are regulated in part by the states, speed limits are regulated on non-federal highways, if Cali wanted to make a speed limit that said 100+MPH on a short in state only road they could and the Feds CAN"T DO CRAP, for its not in thier right to regulate it unless the road led out of the state.Amendments are near concrete laws that can almost never be changed. 😛 Thats why it takes another amendment to cancel another out.
If riots broke out in 7 different states that forced religion on their population, the government wouldn't do anything? I don't think you understand what I mean by major reprocussions.
It's fairly easy to amend the constitutuion actually, if the issue is important enough. They won't add a new law making underwear more comfortable, but they would make a law forbidding religious opression. 2/3 of Congress and a National Convention, and we got ourselves a new law! (that's only one of nine(9) ways, 4 of them formal)
Getting away from religious oppression is what this country was founded on.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Thank you! Something about it that just seems to say "I'm right, you're a dumbass, why do you even bother trying?" when put in the right context.
.RTO, you have absolutely NO reason to believe that people don't like you because they are less effective at debating. People don't like you because, for the billionth time, every post you make simply seems to say "I'm right, so shut up and sit down".
I wasn't being serious about the parents thing. Maybe I should use [/sarcasm] tags around you, since you take everything so seriously. Obviously opinion is valid in debates, but again, for the billionth time, OPINION AND FACT CAN NEVER EVER EVER BE TREATED AS IF THEY ARE EQUAL! Fact will ALWAYS be more valid than opinion. I can say "Bush sucks", but it means nothing unless I back it up with fact. Problem with you is that you never seem to differentiate between fact and your opinions. A lot of what you post is true, but to somebody who knew nothing about the topic, your posts would seem to be 100% factual, since that is how you present the information.
So why do you not chastise the same to Omega when she speaks? She talks down to everyone no matter what. Am i some how an exception because i oppose the points being made? I assume everyone has an opinion and can contribute to the descusion absolutely, i never tell someone to stop speaking... i ask them to prove why they support an opinion and i give my fact supported by my interpretation for them to consider, thats all i can do.
I take things serious because this post can never be changed, it is forever, as long as the servers are still running and i am trying to, as i assume others are trying to make a point.
Yes, you are absolutely correct on everything you stated on fact.
I assume that everyone who has something to say on a topic should have basic knowlegde on the topic and can interpret and sift out the fact from arguement. if not then.... what are they debating for?
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
If riots broke out in 7 different states that forced religion on their population, the government wouldn't do anything? I don't think you understand what I mean by major reprocussions.It's fairly easy to amend the constitutuion actually, if the issue is important enough. They won't add a new law making underwear more comfortable, but they would make a law forbidding religious opression. 2/3 of Congress and a National Convention, and we got ourselves a new law! (that's only one of nine(9) ways, 4 of them formal)
Getting away from religious oppression is what this country was founded on.
Actually the states would deal with it and if need be request federal troops if the "national guard" (basically state private armies) cannot handle it.
2/3 of congress and 75% of the population in every state. 😐 That is near impossible dude and takes a wave of nationalism to cause such an occurance. Especially right now.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
Actually the states would deal with it and if need be request federal troops if the "national guard" (basically state private armies) cannot handle it.2/3 of congress and 75% of the population in every state. 😐 That is near impossible dude and takes a wave of nationalism to cause such an occurance. Especially right now.
You only listed one way, I just said there was 4 formal ways. And it isn't impossible. I hope you realize that religion isn't just some pansy issue, and that you can be certain that if any state tried forcing Christianity on it's population, the rest of the country wouldn't just sit there and do nothing.
You do remember that this country was founded to get away from religious oppression, right? You basically just used a horrible example in your original post. Next time, don't use religion.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You only listed one way, I just said there was 4 formal ways. And it isn't impossible. I hope you realize that religion isn't just some pansy issue, and that you can be certain that if any state tried forcing Christianity on it's population, the rest of the country wouldn't just sit there and do nothing.You do remember that this country was founded to get away from religious oppression, right? You basically just used a horrible example in your original post. Next time, don't use religion.
There is only one way to pass an amendment unless you bend the rules and make exceptions as the civil rights act did.
It doesn't matter the issue, if a State willed it, it can be done. Do you think everyone was not fighting what happened in massachutes? They and the Feds could DO NOTHING.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
There is only one way to pass an amendment unless you bend the rules and make exceptions as the civil rights act did.It doesn't matter the issue, if a State willed it, it can be done. Do you think everyone was not fighting what happened in massachutes? They and the Feds could DO NOTHING.
There's 4 formal ways, actually.
Yes, it does matter the issue. Freedom of religion is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Drop it man, you can't win this one. You picked a poor example. Religion just won't work in your favor. Find another issue.
The FIRST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The church tax wasn't making people worship one religion, nor was it prohibiting the free exercise of the person's religion. The state found a loophole. Now, if the state forced the people to worship one religion, then yes, the federal government would intervene.
>>>Opression isn't tolerated anymore<<< Don't you see that? Even if the rules have to be bent, religious opression wouldn't be accepted. It really doesn't matter what kind of argument you make.
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
There's 4 formal ways, actually.Yes, it does matter the issue. Freedom of religion is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Drop it man, you can't win this one. You picked a poor example. Religion just won't work in your favor. Find another issue.
The FIRST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The church tax wasn't making people worship one religion, nor was it prohibiting the free exercise of the person's religion. The state found a loophole. Now, if the state forced the people to worship one religion, then yes, the federal government would intervene.
>>>Opression isn't tolerated anymore<<< Don't you see that? Even if the rules have to be bent, religious opression wouldn't be accepted. It really doesn't matter what kind of argument you make.
If there was a majority vote in a state intolerence can be accepted as long as it did not infringe upon other rights reserved for the federal governemnt. Technically the Supreme Court can order a change but then it is up to the President to enforce its action. And there have been instances where the President actually ignored the court and nothing was done. I was making an arguement if you remember about if a power not deligated to the Fed was passed by a state and did not cross in anyway into the federal system of jurisiction they can do nothing.