Then lobby to change the Constitution of the United States. Let's give our citizens their rights, and not compromise them. You are American by the fortune of your birth location, as am I, as are they.

wow. i actually completely agree with Riots last post. gud job

I don't disagree. I purposefully used the word "invader" to emphasize the lawlessness of the situation. If the individual(s) in question are not coming here illegally, then obviously they are not invaders and are instead citizens-in-training.

no

they are the result of criminal activity.

I was born from legal citizens as were my parents and so on who were born from American citizens not commiting crimes.

Liberals have already ignored the Constitution.(with the support of non-constructionists) Yet they mock people that want to actually have a Constitutional form of government and say "change it".

LOL isn't that a two sided coin? Danzig made a great point of that not too long ago. We all do it. Conservatives act like the founding fathers stumbled upon the burning bush and from God's lips came the constitution and it should be adhered to strictly...until it doesn't fit some far right or bible belt agenda. Liberals (I say "we") think it is open to interpretation and change and then hide behind it when it suits some "we are the world", save the seals thing.

I think we have come a long way as a society since a group of white men with wigs, false teeth and bad breath had the ONLY say in the way the country was run. Is it fair to say that maybe, just maybe, the constitution might be a bit...outdated in some spots. Maybe?

^^^^ Still sits on eggs holding mirror.Practices Ann Coulter muggy faces.



Is usually wrong, but thinks she's right.

Fits.

I don't think using religion as a measure of who should be allowed to cross the border is a particularly good policy.


Although....while I'm generally in favor of open borders, I admit that if someone proposed to only allow agnostics and atheists into the country and deport ALL of the religious people (citizens and non-citizens alike) I'd almost be tempted to support it.

LOLZ! Good one!!!!1!11!

:tro:

hilarious cartoon by the way!

Sex isn't criminal activity :p

They have committed no crime, and had nothing to do with their parents decisions to commit illegal acts. Hard to take rights away from a certain group of people based upon what their relatives have done. Multiple Supreme Courts have looked at the Civil Rights Act (post Civil War) and the 14th Amendment that solidified it many times. Hispanics are far from the first group to be targeted by others in this respect.

FTFY ;) As with the Bible, people of all political persuasions tend to quote the parts they like, and ignore the parts they don't.

LOL.

And for that very reason, we have the Legislative and Judicial branches ;)

That would indeed be tempting! :tro: :D

On top of all our other problems - just what we need - a Godless country.

However, It sure would take care of the Mexican immigration problem.

Yeah, if a change is needed - how about this?

Subject: NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots,
keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the
blessings of a debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-
great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish
some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,guilt
ridden, and delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident:
that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so
dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or
any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire
them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This
country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone --
not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a
different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always
will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you
stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect
the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently
wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.
Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly
help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing
generation after generation of couch potatoes who achieve nothing more
than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
Get an education and go to work. ...don't expect everyone else to take
care of you!

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would
be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested
in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be
surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other
citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you
away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen
color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want
you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we
expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and
vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American
means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is
a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic
laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: _This is an English speaking country. We don't care where
you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to
wherever you came from!

(Lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history
or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And
yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or
no faith at all; with no fear of persecution _The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST
is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with
it, TOUGH!

you might want to re-read your history. in god we trust was put on the money in 1957-one of the knee jerk reactions to the godless commies, no doubt. that's why we say 'under god' in the pledge, that was added in 1954.


"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." ~james madison


"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." ~thomas jefferson


"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."~ george washington


Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." ~ben franklin



"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac



"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." ~thomans paine


I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not."
preface, Reason the Only Oracle of Man ~ ethan allen

many of our founding fathers were deists, not christians.

"In God we trust" has been on coins since the 1800's.

Religious quotations by the Founding Fathers - too numerous to copy here.

http://christianity.about.com/od/ind...ingfathers.htm

I like Obama in respects to almost everything, except his immigration stance, but we have something in place to prevent electing a disastrous president.

Most of the Electoral College technically does not have to follow what the states vote for!!! It's only tradition that they do. If they really felt someone was going to ruin this country, they'd vote for whoever they want.

I'm for doing away with the Electoral College. There really isn't a need for it any longer - it is a tradition, not a need.

The problem with electing a President is we don't know what a truly F****** moron he/she is until AFTER elected - despite all the warnings beforehand.

Only since the Civil War, I believe.

I do believe the Civil War was in the 1800's.

Good point, we'd be in Dem control for something close to 20 years now if we hadn't had it!

Three cheers for Doreen!

all this talk of changing the constitution and national id's is way too much work and completely misses the point.

what we really need is an easy way of distinguishing brown people that are here legally from those that are here illegally.

i propose small yellow fabric sombrero's that anyone with brown skin or a strange sounding surname has to pin to their outer clothing if they're a citizen. the government can provide these and no one who isn't breaking the law could possibly object.

we can tattoo numbers on the arms of those here illegally, just to make sure they don't come back, and ship them somewhere away from us.

problem solved.

the first coin it appeared on was in 1864. at any rate, the 1950's is when it first appeared on paper money. so, i guess up to 1864 we were a godless country...:rolleyes:

do you understand why the electoral college was put in place? it certainly wasn't so the founding fathers could create a tradition! now, if many are in favor of no longer giving each state equal say in who leads the federal govt, then there could be a change. but i think many say get rid of it because they just don't understand why it's there, or what it was created for.

Also, if anyone could direct me to the part of the constitution that discusses god, and where it states we are formed as a christian nation, I would appreciate it.

Putting aside for a minute that "in Democratic control" is the opposite of what most of us would call "freedom", I doubt it. We would have had this disaster of a Democratic president sooner, and then the country would have went on a Republican voting spree, like with Carter and Reagan.

In 1984, 49 states went Red for Reagan, so the Electoral College didn't mean anything.

Or, if you're right, the dollar would have already collapsed...then the Dems can take off the masks and be the communists they really are.

For what it's worth I agree with both sides that the Electoral College is an anachronism, but to eliminate it the first thing you'd need is a foolproof way to get the fraud out of the system. No more voting multiple times and/or preventing the authorities from requiring ID.

In the interim, the system would be made better by getting rid of the "winner take all" rules in the states, where, if 49% of people vote for a candidate, their vote is basically ignored in favor of the 51% in terms of electoral votes. That's just ridiculous.

If I had the power to shape the system, I would proportionately award the electoral votes from the House seats based on the popular vote within the state, but would award the two Senate electoral votes to the winner of that state. So if California went 60% Democrat, 40% Republican, the Democrat would get the 2 Senate electoral votes, and 60% of the House electoral votes, (round up for the winner): which is 0.6*53 = 31.8 -> 32. The Republican would get 19.

This would at least be a better approximation to the popular vote, and it still satisfies the Constitution on using an electoral college, since I don't think the Constitution tells any state how to award their votes, and in fact 2 states currently do not use "winner take all".

This country would be really screwed if the Dems controlled it for close to 20 years.

The only way to solve the problem is to get rid of the worthless illegals.

not really. Bush was basically a Dem fiscally.. and also pandered to the religious right. I doubt Gore would have done much worse.

We just need a real fiscal conservative.. & one who doesnt give a damn about the religious right.. to be in office.

You're assuming Gore would have been re-elected? HAH! That's a real knee slapper. I think the Dems would have been laughed out of the two elections since 2000 had we had that bozo for President. Bush did get the popular vote in 2004.

But, it doesn't change my mind about the Electoral College.

And, my comment about a godless nation was in response to whomsoever it was and those who agreed about deporting religious people from the USA

And, please stop trying to teach history lessons. I'd accept them if y'all didn't make so many mistakes.

This has always struck me as a better way of doing it.

agreed

I agree

Maybe we will see something like that someday. The key is that the Senate votes go to the vote leader in the state, as it helps to keep the vote decisive, which, despite its flaws, is one of the goals of the current electoral college system.

we'll never see anything like this because election laws, including the way a state's presidential electors are selected, are up to the individual states.

it's in the interest of each state to have a winner take all system to maximize their influence in the election. as a candidate, are you going to campaign in the populous state with a few competitive districts or the less populous state with a winner take all system? a handful of electors in california or everyone in iowa?

no populous state is going to unilaterally disarm. they're already underrepresented in the senate. they aren't going to throw away whatever marginal benefit is extracted from the current system.

you're probably right. plus, not having winner take all could cause more issues than it solves. what if there were no candidate that received enough votes? a very real possibility if states split their vote, and didn't have winner take all.

then, there's what i thought of earlier this evening. look at the name of our country-not for nothing is it called the united states. no state is supposed to be more powerful than any other-no doubt the main reason there is an electoral college.

Would have gone.