Supreme Court murders California man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highinspain

A Bit off track, but it shows that the government is really out of touch, if they cannot agree to give equal rights to all how can they possibly legalize marijuana....

The ERA's first section states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." It was intended to place into law the equality of men and women. It was sent to the states in March, 1972. The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years. It expired unratified in 1982.

The text:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

---

so are you proposing, say, an armed revolution?

but seriously, the supreme court ruled that black people werent human at a time. so that shows how great they are at ruling between the lines. if the whole idea is to follow every law by the letter, then what about the laws written by the corrupt?

Well, the Congress does not ratify amendments to the Constitution, the States do. If you wish to blame someone for the failure of the ERA, then place the blame properly, with the States - more specifically, with the voters. It's my feeling that the Amendment failed because because it was deemed unnecessary. The Constitution already explicitly grants the same rights to all Men ("...All men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights..."); with the term "men" here taking on the same meaning as "person", irrespective of gender.

[QUOTE=nicholasstanko]so are you proposing, say, an armed revolution?

I thought it was happing now Just ask torog :) :)

Granted, it is the states but, apparently enough women felt they also wanted to be included not just men....seems a bit silly but whats in a word? is is "is"

[QUOTE=highinspain]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

so are you proposing, say, an armed revolution?

I thought it was happing now Just ask torog :) :)

---

lol. but i trust torog. dont you trust retired army troops with extreme right-wing christian agendas toting semi-automatic wepons too? bush thinks its a good idea!

lol. just havin a poke at ya torog ;)

i don't know...bush is pretty liberal as i see it. he's basically bill clinton on steroids. he's got to keep this illusion up he's conservative on these hallmark issues so his base doesn't wake up to the fact that he's really an aristocratic anti-american puppet meant to sell out our sovereignty to global interests.

but i think lord bush hates guns and loves dead babies as much as the next globalist politico.

Yes i do I like the guy even if he scares me ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highinspain

...seems a bit silly but whats in a word? is is "is"

---

Agreed. I would not be adverse to changing the wording to "All people/persons..." or something of that nature. But once you start altering the body text of the Constitution, you open up a whole new can of worms. It would be a disturbing precendent; one which I, for one, would be very concerned about should it occur. I think the present wording is sufficient, and apparently the majority of the voters concur.

I agree ,i did not mean to go off track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

I never said the supreme court shouldve ruled in favour. to an extent i would agree with their decision because it is the law. what im trying to say is that they shouldve at least made note of that fact. since they didnt, it comes off as though they couldnt care less.

---

Justice Stevens actually made note of the fact that currect medical marijuana laws trouble him. He said something to the effect of, I hope this debate can find its way to the halls of Congress (not an exact quote; I can't seem to find it). But since that was not the issue before the court, he had no choice but to make a finding "against" users of medical marijuana.

It really was the right thing to do. Whether you agree with it or not, marijuana has been a so-called controlled substance since the '40s and the Court rightly found that the federal government has jurisdiction over such things.

If the laws were changed, obviously, the Supreme Court would've responded differently. That needs to be the focus.