Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Yes, this is a Link to a conservative blog. But it tells it like it is.
Sorry Justice Stevens, but I will exercise my right as a free citizen to fight you tooth and nail on this.
I will make one compromise. You can mess with any of the Amendments except the first Ten, which, in case you have forgotten, are called "The Bill of Rights" for a very good reason.
I will make one compromise. You can mess with any of the Amendments except the first Ten, which, in case you have forgotten, are called "The Bill of Rights" for a very good reason.
No he can't. There is already a long-established procedure in place to amend the constitution. Its been done several times throughout US history.
Quote:
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses 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 ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment 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. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
So, only one poster, CC, is concerned, or even cares, that a retired Supreme Court Justice wants to fundementally change what many believe it is to be an "American".
Not all, mind you, as we are a Country of many diversified beliefs, but all brought together as one under our Constitution.
I wonder what side you guys would come down on if someone took out a gun and started shooting all the people who were trying to put him in an electric chair.
So, only one poster, CC, is concerned, or even cares, that a retired Supreme Court Justice wants to fundementally change what many believe it is to be an "American".
Not all, mind you, as we are a Country of many diversified beliefs, but all brought together as one under our Constitution.
He can't change it anymore than Mark Levin can.
It would take a shooting war to change the NRA's favorite amendment.
The fucking liberals are close to their commie pal Putin on this one...bet the Ukrainians wish they had more protection....
"Only Russian citizens who are over eighteen years of age can own civilian firearms. Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited.
Carrying permits are issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. People who acquire firearms for the first time are required to attend six and a half hours of classes on handling guns safely and must pass federal tests on safety rules, and their background is checked.[96][further explanation needed] Gun licenses are for five years and can be renewed.
In Ukraine a license is required to own firearms. If a citizen is:
21 years of age (18 if the license is for hunting)
has no criminal record
has no history of domestic violence
has no mental illness or history of mental illness
has good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection)
...then that person may be issued a license.
Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe. If a person owns more than three firearms, the safe must have an alarm on it. Citizens are permitted to own non-fully automatic rifles and shotguns as long as they are stored properly when not in use.
Handguns are illegal except for target shooting and those who hold concealed carry permits. Handguns are only allowed in .22, 9mm, .357mag and .38 calibre. Concealed carry licenses are available, but are not normally issued unless a threat to life is present and can be proven"
source - Wikipedia
In Texas, you don't need no stinkin' license to own a motherfucking gun...let's see Putin try some shit here.
Obama is right - I'm clinging to my guns and my religion!!!
So, Retired Justice Stevens Wants To Re-Write Our Constitution.
