That's not what your quote means. You're saying it's your BELIEF that amending the BoR will dissolve the confidence of the governed? In regards to what? Did someone suggest doing that?
I'm just trying to follow the chain of thought.
General Louis Farrakhan
- Thread starter Banchan
- Start date
I'm just trying to follow the chain of thought.
no, the preamble says that the purpose of the BoR is to explicitly codify the assumed conditions under which the Constitution was ratified, so amending the BoR means we're going to revisit the ratification of the original document. It sets a baseline, "extending the ground" on which the Constitution rests. Altering the BoR is a violation of the public trust that was placed in the government, and any government which attempts to infringe on those Natural Rights is, by definition, no longer legitimate.
We agree on the first part, but I'm asking why you're posting it. No one said anything about amending the BoR. Farrakhan is a racist asshole, but unless he becomes slanderous, he's legally untouchable. Someone brought up the first amendment- which is irrelevant here- and you posted that.
Well according to the @connor'sbeard guy, he's not racist. lol.
Ah, the post must have been deleted- or I'm ignoring Song4, I didn't see it.
I mean... semantics. You can introduce an amendment to repeal another and as long as it's ratified 2/3, 2/3, 3/4 there you go. 18/21 obvious example. The Bill of Rights isn't really a thing.
...and no one has confidence in the government anymore, bro.
actually, the BoR doesn't "grant" any rights. It restricts the governments ability to impose restrictions or infringe on eternal rights.
Unlike other amendments, you can't pass an amendment to restrict free speech (or any other right in BoR) because the Constitution (and by extension the government) doesn't grant those rights. The very act of passing an amendment would be a violation of enumerated powers.
Well, if racism is displaying discrimination, hatred and prejudice against another race than he's a a pretty clear racist. I don't even think he's trying to hide it. He hates Jews. This is a man who said "When it's God who puts you in the ovens, it's forever!" at Madison Square Garden.
You're talking nonsense, dude. And who are you quoting with "grants", I never typed that. I'm understanding your point as certain freedoms are above the law? They're not. The end result of gun control is a new amendment to repeal #2. REALISTICALLY you'll never get the 3/4 to ratify, especially not a repeal of #2.
Last edited:
Oh I''m not disagreeing at all. It's just that guy wanted to square dance in circles with me regarding the definition of the term as if one can't possibly be racist against Jews.
not quoting you, just using quotes because the government can't grant anything - it can only initiate violence to take and give elsewhere. Rights are possessed by all people at all times, the only role of the government is to enumerate the rights the people possess. That's really well-defined by the Federalist Papers (Hamilton especially), letters, and early SCOTUS decisions, like Cruikshank. Nobody from either side argued that the FedGov had any power to infringe on the BoR, both sides accepted it prima facie, the contention was about reconciling the 10A with the other articles of the BoR.
Not to derail into a 2A discussion, but the 2nd Amendment is a good example. Agreeing that there's no way to get it ratified, hypothetically if such an amendment was easily ratified, the government would not even possess the power to put the amendment before the Senate, as it would be in violation of the 2A. The Senate does not have an enumerated power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and it has a specific restriction on it's ability to infringe on that right - which is they can't infringe at all. Of course, if it was easy to ratify, nobody would be making that argument.
Are you hinting nobody wants to call him out because he's black?Rev Farrakhan is African-American@Banchan.
I'm terrible at reading "between lines". I really have very limited scope of things that need not be said because people understand etc. I really have very little idea why a racist can get fired and life destroyed for much much less than what farrakhan is saying about Jews.
Or is because Jews face the kind of racism Asians do where very few people call out racism against them because they aren't considered marginalized enough by racism because they are successful enough in society?
It's all so confusing!!