is no different then a bible thumper refering to the bible to twist things around for their own agendas
2006-09-15 02:22:08 · 10 answers · asked by a true american 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
hate to tell ya libs.. the white founding forefathers didnt write the constiution for minorities and queers....duh....but bible is for everyone
2006-09-15 08:14:57 · update #1
well love to give you my email address but i have the liberal ****** option block set ..
2006-09-17 01:15:42 · update #2
The liberals and the ACLU have done more to divest us of our liberties than anyone else can hope to achieve. Fortunately, there is now someone out there who is fighting each of the ACLU's cases... and winning. Even judges are getting tired of hearing the same rhetoric in trying to establish their case. That is how radiculous it has become. Those who complain the loudest are the ones who are sneaking in the back door and robbing us of our freedoms. Even the judges who are selected by the ACLU to hear their cases, are backing off The notoriety is not pleasing to them anymore.. Their decisions are being overturned by the higher courts.
2006-09-15 02:39:17 · answer #1 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Except a bible thumper, even when twisting the meaning to support their agenda belives in the bible. Unfortunately the same can't be said about libs and the constitution.
2006-09-15 02:33:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
how can one compare the bible to the constitution? One is a set of anecdotal stories and allegories, the other is a well-written set of laws.
Look how Bushis trying to rewrite the geneva convention. Do you think he has respect for it? And do you think he has respect for the constitution? Consider the Patriot Act, scary stuff. The people in his inner circle are trying to warp long-standing laws and accepted conventions to suit their own agendas. Don't have to be a liberal to see that. Just need eyes, ears, and a brain.
2006-09-15 02:33:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
you're ultimate yet there are a number of ideally suited lawsuits that ought to truly argue the choice view of that appropriate. It became not till the Nineteen Sixties that the ideally suited courtroom affirmatively addressed the constitutional appropriate to vote. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the courtroom reversed its earlier determination of Colegrove v. eco-friendly (1946), conserving that the courts ought to take heed to disputes related to reapportionment and redistricting (see Reapportionment circumstances). Then in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), it embraced the thought of equivalent illustration for equivalent numbers of folk—one individual, one vote. greater significant, in Reynolds the ideally suited courtroom ruled that the ultimate to vote in federal elections became placed interior the item I, section 2 of the form description of the homestead of Representatives as “chosen. … by ability of the human beings of diverse States,” and interior the references to the election of senators got here across interior the seventeenth exchange.2 in an attempt to redeem the chaos of the 2000 presidential election and to start to make sure that such an attack on democracy heavily isn't repeated. evaluate this suggestion for a twenty 8th exchange: section a million. electorate of united statesa. have the ultimate to vote in time-honored and popular elections for President and vice chairman, for electors for President and vice chairman, for Representatives and Senators interior the Congress, and for govt and legislative officers of their state, district, and local legislatures, and such appropriate shall not be denied or abridged by ability of united statesa. or any State. SECT I ON 2. the ultimate of electorate of united statesa. to vote and to take part in elections on an equivalent foundation shall not be denied or abridged by ability of united statesa. or any State ensuing from political-social gathering association or previous situation of incarceration. section 3. The District constituting the seat of government of united statesa. shall decide for Senators and Representatives interior the Congress in such selection and such way because it would be entitled if it have been a State. section 4. The Congress shall have skill to enforce this text by ability of appropriate law.
2016-10-15 00:45:39 · answer #4 · answered by mulry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay, we'll go through this slowly.
Read my lips.
Constitution: political.
Bible: religious.
Constitution: White House.
Bible: Vatican.
Constitution: law.
Bible: suggestions.
Constitution: real.
Bible: fairy tale.
'Kay, now? Shall we recite it again?
2006-09-15 02:40:35 · answer #5 · answered by St. Hell 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are a true American, I would like to meet the false ones.
2006-09-15 02:30:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the Constitution is real ( we know who wrote it and why ) the bible ain't ( so the interpretation of the Constitution is the problem not the document )
2006-09-15 02:31:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
or the true american being a homo! dont ever call me chief again asswipe! be man enough to allow others to email you!
2006-09-15 03:56:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
theyre the same. the fact is its all written how it sounds, not to be changed.
2006-09-15 02:28:36 · answer #9 · answered by Brendan 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
okay, but give examples to make your point.
2006-09-15 02:29:32 · answer #10 · answered by slyry75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋