Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
What is really funny is why would he even bother suggesting to change the wording? Stevens, and his liberal friends on the court, have never demonstrated any real concern about what the constitution actual says.
They declare things constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on what they want it to say, not anything it actual says.
How exactly can we have prayer in school for 187 years and then without changing a single word it suddenly became unconstitutional?
The founders gave us the mechanisms to change it as society deemed necessary, but that requires actually changing it, not "changing" it by ignoring it as the dishonest and dishonorable Stevens does.
They declare things constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on what they want it to say, not anything it actual says.
How exactly can we have prayer in school for 187 years and then without changing a single word it suddenly became unconstitutional?
The founders gave us the mechanisms to change it as society deemed necessary, but that requires actually changing it, not "changing" it by ignoring it as the dishonest and dishonorable Stevens does.
They declare things constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on what they want it to say, not anything it actual says.
How exactly can we have prayer in school for 187 years and then without changing a single word it suddenly became unconstitutional?
The founders gave us the mechanisms to change it as society deemed necessary, but that requires actually changing it, not "changing" it by ignoring it as the dishonest and dishonorable Stevens does.