sheep

[DanB98TJ]

Originally posted by mrblaine
In Tucson, it is illegal for women to wear pants.

Guess that one isn't enforced very well.....

Back on topic, I could care less about what people do in their bedrooms, as long as it's between consenting adults. I think a majority of people feel the same way. I find the thought of crawling into bed with another man repulsive, but hey, whatever floats your boat is fine, as long as it doesn't affect me.

That being said, I don't think that gays should be granted marriage licenses. It goes completely against what marriage has been defined as throughout history. Sure, homosexuality has been around since biblical times, but marriage has always referred to the union of a man and a woman.

While I appreciate Bush taking a stand on the issue, a constitutional amendment isn't necessary or appropriate, IHMO. The laws that are on the books should be enforced, and those violating them should be held accountable. And, yes, there are a ton of laws that are extremely outdated and ridiculous, not to mention unenforced. If people feel strongly enough about any of them, not just those related to marriage, they should work to have them repealed or changed instead of just ignoring them.

While I was reading through all the replies, I had a more concise reply in mind, but after reading through all of Blaine's laws - and a few Fat Tires - I kinda lost my train of thought. Hopefully at least a little of this made sense.....

[DanB98TJ]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
About $5 million ought to cover it.

Hell, I almost wasted a mouthful of beer over that one.....

[blkTJ]

ahhh Blaine... great posts. I couldn't help but try and imagine each instance that brought those ridiculous laws into being. That's what happens when you take yourself and/or odd events far too seriously.

This marriage thing is a joke. couldn't care less. doesn't affect me in the least. doesn't really hurt any posing the opposition to it either.

you know... we're all here for a limited amount of time. we should enjoy it while we can. hopefully we respect the rights of others to enjoy it differantly than ourselves. time spent attempting to limit other peoples freedoms is indeed a waste.

tomorrow = days left - 1.

[shmekelhead]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DanB98TJ
[B]Guess that one isn't enforced very well.....

" but hey, whatever floats your boat is fine, as long as it doesn't affect me."

Not to single you out Dan,

but, that is what is wrong with this country.

It doesn't affect me so why should I care. Well it does affect you, and and your children and thier children.

I would guess half this country feels the way you do, but there's a small minority that has an agenda to accomplish and they seem to always screem the loudest. They get what they want because there's not enough opposing "voices" to stop it.

God has become almost a bad word (and that was my point on earlier post), Gun owners are looked down upon outside thier circle now as trouble makers and providing access to criminals. A once good friend of mine said the 2nd addmendment was antiquated and we need to move on, and another co-worker said he could careless "it doesn't affect me".

[Daless2]

Originally posted by mrblaine
Forgive me my lack of personal leadership Frank, but I have a plateful at the moment and if I were so inclined, where would I start? Here is the list, which ones do you plan on screaming about???-

Hi Blaine,

Somehow in the early morning hours I didn't see your actual question. I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't see it till just now.

My Answer; "All of them!"


I do think, like most other reasonable people, that the list of laws you posted is somewhat ridiculous. Be that as it may, my position remains constant.


This is an issue of being a Nation of Laws or Not!

1. If the law is being broken, enforce it. Arrest people, give them due process and let it play out it's course.

2. And, if "the People" don't like the law, change it.


It doesn't get any simpler then that. Two steps that as I see it handle the somewhat ridiculous laws (Not playing Domino's on Sundays) and the somewhat more legitimate laws (Not hiring illegal aliens).


Either should be enforced until changed. Neither should get dismissed by anyone but the Courts (that's their job), not the individual who doesn't like the law.


I think Jeff had a great example about California's "Extra" gun control laws. I would suspect many here don't like it. I don't. Yet we don't say "Doesn't apply to me?" Why Not? Why don't you break the law. I mean it is silly, right? It violates your constitutional rights, doesn't it?


We don't violate the "Extra" California gun control laws, for the most part, for one of two reasons.

1. We believe in being a Nation of Laws, even when we don't like the law and work to get it changed. ( Or simply just scream about it! )

or

2. We don't want to have to deal with the penalty! (i.e. PAIN; Getting arrested and all the associated stuff one would have to go through to defend oneself.)

See my point?


Again, Bottom line;

This isn't an issue of Gay Rights, or an issue for The Constitution. It is an issue of being a nation of laws or not!

If the law is being broken, enforce it, arrest people, give them due process and let it play out it's course.

And, if "the People" don't like the law, change it.


Frank

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by Daless2
Hi Blaine,

Somehow in the early morning hours I didn't see your actual question. I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't see it till just now.

My Answer; "All of them!"


I do think, like most other reasonable people, that the list of laws you posted is somewhat ridiculous. Be that as it may, my position remains constant.


This is an issue of being a Nation of Laws or Not!

1. If the law is being broken, enforce it. Arrest people, give them due process and let it play out it's course.

2. And, if "the People" don't like the law, change it.


It doesn't get any simpler then that. Two steps that as I see it handle the somewhat ridiculous laws (Not playing Domino's on Sundays) and the somewhat more legitimate laws (Not hiring illegal aliens).


Either should be enforced until changed. Neither should get dismissed by anyone but the Courts (that's their job), not the individual who doesn't like the law.


I think Jeff had a great example about California's "Extra" gun control laws. I would suspect many here don't like it. I don't. Yet we don't say "Doesn't apply to me?" Why Not? Why don't you break the law. I mean it is silly, right? It violates your constitutional rights, doesn't it?


We don't violate the "Extra" California gun control laws, for the most part, for one of two reasons.

1. We believe in being a Nation of Laws, even when we don't like the law and work to get it changed. ( Or simply just scream about it! )

or

2. We don't want to have to deal with the penalty! (i.e. PAIN; Getting arrested and all the associated stuff one would have to go through to defend oneself.)

See my point?


Again, Bottom line;

This isn't an issue of Gay Rights, or an issue for The Constitution. It is an issue of being a nation of laws or not!

If the law is being broken, enforce it, arrest people, give them due process and let it play out it's course.

And, if "the People" don't like the law, change it.


Frank

Could you also not, as in the case of most of the ridiculous laws, as a group decide that they were unenforceable and ignore them?

The state of California passed over 900 state laws last year. Something is wrong somewhere if we needed 900 limitations on something.

I perfectly well realize that we are and should be a nation of law. I'm still trying to figure out why we even need a law defining any aspect of marriage other than minimum age and species.

[Allen]

Originally posted by mrblaine

Illinois

In Joliet, it is illegal to mispronounce the name Joliet.

Yes.....It's punishable by death.....



Allen

[William]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
Actually, he should respect the role of the constitution. This is not about gay marriage, it's about an elected official who is advocating that we use the US Constitution as a weapon, that we use it as a document of exclusion rather than inclusion, that we use it as a means to limit choice in a supposed free America, rather than use it as a catalyst for positive change and empowerment. This is just not right. Especially in America.

PS: William, don't you mean diversity

Diversity, yeah. Spelling, among many things, not one of my strong points.

[BlueJeeper]

Over the carnage rose prophetic a voice,
Be not dishearten?d?Affection shall solve the problems of Freedom yet;
Those who love each other shall become invincible?they shall yet make Columbia victorious.

Sons of the Mother of All! you shall yet be victorious!
You shall yet laugh to scorn the attacks of all the remainder of the earth.

No danger shall balk Columbia?s lovers;
If need be, a thousand shall sternly immolate themselves for one.

One from Massachusetts shall be a Missourian?s comrade;
From Maine and from hot Carolina, and another, an Oregonese, shall be friends triune,
More precious to each other than all the riches of the earth.

To Michigan, Florida perfumes shall tenderly come;
Not the perfumes of flowers, but sweeter, and wafted beyond death.

It shall be customary in the houses and streets to see manly affection;
The most dauntless and rude shall touch face to face lightly;
The dependence of Liberty shall be lovers,
The continuance of Equality shall be comrades.

These shall tie you and band you stronger than hoops of iron;
I, extatic, O partners! O lands! with the love of lovers tie you.

(Were you looking to be held together by the lawyers?
Or by an agreement on a paper? or by arms?
?Nay?nor the world, nor any living thing, will so cohere.)



-Walt Whitman

[Paradiddle]

Rosie O'Donnell to Marry Girlfriend
26 minutes ago Add Entertainment - AP to My Yahoo!

SAN FRANCISCO - Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell (news) said she planned to marry her longtime girlfriend Thursday in San Francisco, where more than 3,300 other same-sex couples have tied the knot since Feb. 12.

O'Donnell announced her planned wedding to Kelli Carpenter on ABC News' "Good Morning America," just two days after President Bush (news - web sites) called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

In fact, she said the president's call spurred her to come to San Francisco, where city officials continue to perform same-sex weddings even as the legality of those marriages is being considered by state courts.

"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.

"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct magazine Rosie.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."




Jeff

[shmekelhead]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
Rosie O'Donnell to Marry Girlfriend
a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct magazine Rosie.

Jeff

Thats why my family doesn't watch Nickelodeon....

Wow, so she is publicly saying she is going to break the law

ANARCHY

[Robert J. Yates]

Besides wanting a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, he has also asked for a constitutional amendment to prevent flag burning and a constitutional amendment banning abortions. There was one more but I cannot recall it at the moment but I have to ask - what is with needing all these constititional amendments? Why does he insist on using the constitition to legislate behavior that he doesn't agree with? Right now, our president sure seems to have come from another country where it was accepted practice to stifle the behavior of others by criminalizing it.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Daless2
Bottom line; This isn't an issue of Gay Rights, or an issue for The Constitution. It is an issue of being a nation of laws or not!

Hi Frank,
I have an alternative viewpoint for you. Was not our nation founded on a set of rights? Inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That in of itself is what I think makes our founding documents such grand achievements. They do not speak to what you can't do - they speak to what you can.

History is loaded with the trials and tribulations of mankind struggling under the process of law and one has to look no further than the bible to see an example of this. The jews had more laws than they knew what do do with under the law of Moses. And then Jesus showed up and threw a nice little kink in their system. For example, under the law of Moses, it was perfectly acceptable to change money and sell animals amongst other things in the temple - Jesus specialized in clearing them out and was crucified for it for he dared use the term "my Fathers' house" when asked why.

I also think Jesus serves us with another example of paying attention to your fellow man, not simply those one happens to agree with. He associated with what was considered to be the vilest members of society. He preached to the gentiles and had the audacity of being a jew and then speaking to others outside his tribe (the woman at the well). Folks can say what they will about gays - I do not agree with it either but that does not mean that I have the right to sit in judgement of them when it comes down to the issuance of societys' goodwill towards them. They are either equal or our belief as a nation in our founding documents is a sham.

Hopefully Frank, my ramblings make sense to you You will be getting an e-mail from a little person soon - she was quite impressed with both your package of goodies and your subsequent e-mail.

[DanB98TJ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shmekelhead
[B]

Originally posted by DanB98TJ
Guess that one isn't enforced very well.....
Not to single you out Dan,

but, that is what is wrong with this country.

It doesn't affect me so why should I care. Well it does affect you, and and your children and thier children.

If you'll go back and read my post again, I was specifically referring to what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom. That doesn't affect anyone other than those individuals. I can see where you might think that is my attitude towards everything, but it is not.

[Daless2]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
Hi Frank,
I have an alternative viewpoint for you. Was not our nation founded on a set of rights? Inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That in of itself is what I think makes our founding documents such grand achievements. They do not speak to what you can't do - they speak to what you can.

History is loaded with the trials and tribulations of mankind struggling under the process of law and one has to look no further than the bible to see an example of this. The jews had more laws than they knew what do do with under the law of Moses. And then Jesus showed up and threw a nice little kink in their system. For example, under the law of Moses, it was perfectly acceptable to change money and sell animals amongst other things in the temple - Jesus specialized in clearing them out and was crucified for it for he dared use the term "my Fathers' house" when asked why.

I also think Jesus serves us with another example of paying attention to your fellow man, not simply those one happens to agree with. He associated with what was considered to be the vilest members of society. He preached to the gentiles and had the audacity of being a jew and then speaking to others outside his tribe (the woman at the well). Folks can say what they will about gays - I do not agree with it either but that does not mean that I have the right to sit in judgement of them when it comes down to the issuance of societys' goodwill towards them. They are either equal or our belief as a nation in our founding documents is a sham.

Hopefully Frank, my ramblings make sense to you You will be getting an e-mail from a little person soon - she was quite impressed with both your package of goodies and your subsequent e-mail.

Hi Robert,

I think your rambling make more then a little bit of sense to me, and I hope to others too.

It is not my place to judge others, not my friends, my family or my neighbors. I have enough of my own flaws to worry about resolving before I try and fix anyone else's flaws.

That said, to me this entire issue of Gay Marriages isn't an issue of "is it right or is it wrong", but more an issue of the obvious.

It's illegal.


I agree that our founding documents are great achievements, providing for those inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a manor and fashion dictated by the "Rule of Law", and not the "Rule of Men".

The Rule of Men is the scourge of this planet. One only needs to take a look at any of the major "rulers of men" in history (Hitler, Eddie Amean, Pall Pot) to see the failures. One could even look at the most current, Saddom!

No the rule of men can never be allowed to overtake the "Rule of Law". At best this will bring on anarchy, at worst civil war.

The rule of law in this country simply states Gay folks can't get a marriage license. It has nothing to do with how I feel about this, it is simply the law. Enforce it, or change it, for that is what a reasonable society does and that is what is guaranteed by the Constitution.


Certainly Blaine and others have given many good examples of ridiculous laws. These are ridiculous becuase 99.999999% of the people would agree that they are. I don't think you will find a similar volume of Americans that feel the marriage laws are ridiculous. But I could be wrong.


We can not be selective in this, for the basis of this country is that of "a nation of laws". If we let this slip through our fingers then we allow a lot more to slip away. Without the rule of law you have a lawless society, where might makes right and the biggest gun rules.

Would any of us advocate opening the borders completely? Let anyone and everyone into America who can get here?

Are they not the huddle masses longing for freedom and to reach our shores? The poorest of the poor? The most needy? Why should our laws stand in there way? Shouldn't they and those who employ them be exempt from these laws?

I think not, even though the over whelming majority of us can understand why they want to come here, we are not willing to change the laws or ignore or laws on this. Are we? Are we not telling people what they "Can't Do?"

Same can be said for the Mormon's and the religious beliefs about multiple wives? We TOLD them to change their Religion! I honestly do not think any of us, including myself full phantom the impact of this! Talk about infringing on rights! WOW! I can name at least a half dozen violation of the Constitution in this issue!!!


How I feel about Gay Marriages I will keep to myself, for what I feel and what I believe isn't what should be forced on or accepted by anyone else.

But the rule of law is something we all must abide by, just like Jesus did in the Temple.

Yes Jesus did indeed "prevent" the changing of money and the selling of Animals in "My Fathers House."

Now I don't know but that sounds a little bit to me like he laid down "His Law" which said "You can't do that here any more and I don't care if it infringes on your right to pursue happiness or not!"


I too believe that Jesus serves me as my primary example of paying attention to my fellow man and not simply those that I happen to agree with. I need to become more effective at doing this, I need to become more humble while doing it too!

Great point Robert. Thanks for sharing them, and for putting the thought provoking post up in the first place.


Frank

PS: Can't wait to hear from her. I believe one of life's greatest rewards comes from putting smiles on little peoples faces.

[TJP]

Originally posted by mrblaine


The state of California passed over 900 state laws last year. Something is wrong somewhere if we needed 900 limitations on something.

.

The worst part about this is that it is 900 MORE limitations on top of how many 10's of thousands that are already on the books. As long as we have FULL time lawmakers that need to protect their jobs, this won't end.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by Daless2
That said, to me this entire issue of Gay Marriages isn't an issue of "is it right or is it wrong", but more an issue of the obvious.

It's illegal.

Frank,

The only answer I can offer up as to why California law is not being enforced in this manner, is that the civil rights movements this country has seen are so engrained in our psyche, and in my opinion there is not an individual out there that lacks the cowardice to play Judas.

Instead, what you have is a presidential administration playing end-around an already unenforced law by suggesting a constitutional amendment.

In this regard, I think I am not in disagreement with what you are saying at heart.

I think what it comes down to, is that us folks are expressing frustration from all sides at the way politicians are handling this issue--whether you agree with gay marriage or not.

To me, it is a maddening representation of election year politics, that is akin to chasing the town puffball around the square for a few laps because beating our wife after we lost our job didn't make us feel any better.

I don't mean to be crass--but it just gives me a sickening feeling.

Regards,
Rick

[Daless2]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
Frank,

The only answer I can offer up as to why California law is not being enforced in this manner, is that the civil rights movements this country has seen are so engrained in our psyche, and in my opinion there is not an individual out there that lacks the cowardice to play Judas.

Instead, what you have is a presidential administration playing end-around an already unenforced law by suggesting a constitutional amendment.

In this regard, I think I am not in disagreement with what you are saying at heart.

I think what it comes down to, is that us folks are expressing frustration from all sides at the way politicians are handling this issue--whether you agree with gay marriage or not.

To me, it is a maddening representation of election year politics, that is akin to chasing the town puffball around the square for a few laps because beating our wife after we lost our job didn't make us feel any better.

I don't mean to be crass--but it just gives me a sickening feeling.

Regards,
Rick

Oh Yes, Rick I am in total agreement with this.

We have a lack of leadership in the country that is beyond my ability to comprehend; Democrats and Republicans, the extreme left and the extreme right, almost all.

Very very few are interested in solving the problems of the country and our great people. Instead they are interested in motivating their political bases with emotional issues so they may stay in power or come into power.

This is not leadership, but rather a very bad joke on all the people.

Frank

[cbassett]

Originally posted by Wind_Danzer
On the MickyD's thing..... what type of car was she driving. I know the Honda Civic my family has does not have cup holders and that's from 1991. My dad (and myself) are always placing drinks between our legs while we drive, it's the only place for them.

So you're saying she could've gone after Honda for gross negligence as well?

[Wind_Danzer]

Originally posted by cbassett
So you're saying she could've gone after Honda for gross negligence as well?

Maybe....

[shmekelhead]

How about this....

According to the July 10, 2002, Akron Beacon Journal, "Two carpet installers who admit they read the label of an adhesive they used, admit they understood the adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued and won $8 million dollars."


In Galveston, Texas, a jury awarded $65 million to the parents and estate of a woman who drowned after her car rolled off a boat ramp. She couldn't disengage her seat belt. The jury found Honda of America Manufacturing Co. Inc. and Honda R & D Co. Ltd. 75 percent responsible for the death of Karen Norman, even though her blood-alcohol level measured at nearly twice the Texas legal limit (.17). Fortunately, an appeals court threw out the award, which a trial judge had previously reduced to $43 million.


The wife of a hockey fan who crashed his car after drinking too much at a Minnesota Wild game has sued the team, saying her husband who was paralyzed in the Feb. 8, 2002, auto crash shouldn't have been served so much alcohol.



And this, well, I just had to add it.

74-year-old Irving Rosenberg forgot that movies at the Tamarac discount movie theater were $3 on Friday nights rather than $2. Behind him in line, Yvonne Schuss impatiently kibitzed, words were exchanged, and Yvonne's 68-year-old (and legally blind) husband Seymour interceded. In the resulting one-punch brawl, Mr. Rosenberg was knocked to the ground, lapsed into a coma, and died sixteen days later. (Mr. Schuss's manslaughter trial ended in a mistrial this month.)

Naturally, the party to sue is the West Broward County theater, for failing to provide adequate security in the event of a retiree riot--Mr. Rosenberg's lawyer, Michael Sobel, feels the omission is so egregious that he is seeking punitive damages. Mr. Sobel also blames the theater for failing to open the box office for 7 pm movies until 6:30, which he believes led to the frayed tempers.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
How about this....

According to the July 10, 2002, Akron Beacon Journal, "Two carpet installers who admit they read the label of an adhesive they used, admit they understood the adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued and won $8 million dollars."


In Galveston, Texas, a jury awarded $65 million to the parents and estate of a woman who drowned after her car rolled off a boat ramp. She couldn't disengage her seat belt. The jury found Honda of America Manufacturing Co. Inc. and Honda R & D Co. Ltd. 75 percent responsible for the death of Karen Norman, even though her blood-alcohol level measured at nearly twice the Texas legal limit (.17). Fortunately, an appeals court threw out the award, which a trial judge had previously reduced to $43 million.


The wife of a hockey fan who crashed his car after drinking too much at a Minnesota Wild game has sued the team, saying her husband who was paralyzed in the Feb. 8, 2002, auto crash shouldn't have been served so much alcohol.



And this, well, I just had to add it.

74-year-old Irving Rosenberg forgot that movies at the Tamarac discount movie theater were $3 on Friday nights rather than $2. Behind him in line, Yvonne Schuss impatiently kibitzed, words were exchanged, and Yvonne's 68-year-old (and legally blind) husband Seymour interceded. In the resulting one-punch brawl, Mr. Rosenberg was knocked to the ground, lapsed into a coma, and died sixteen days later. (Mr. Schuss's manslaughter trial ended in a mistrial this month.)

Naturally, the party to sue is the West Broward County theater, for failing to provide adequate security in the event of a retiree riot--Mr. Rosenberg's lawyer, Michael Sobel, feels the omission is so egregious that he is seeking punitive damages. Mr. Sobel also blames the theater for failing to open the box office for 7 pm movies until 6:30, which he believes led to the frayed tempers.

If you wish to hold any of those up as your shining example of justice gone awry, feel free to do so. My only point previous is that folks should look deeper than the face value of the McDonalds suit for the example.

It is a poor one at best when the actual facts come to light and a major pet peeve of mine when it is considered ridiculous by those that have not dug as deep as you now have appeared to do with your new cases.

Learn something today?

[meatblanket]

I think that the American Trial Lawyers Association has done a pretty good job spinning the "McDonald's Coffee verdict" in the opposite direction. For every advocate of tort reform, including insurance companies, there are people out there working hard to spin public opinion the other way.

My favorite "jury gone wild" story relates to a doctor in Alabama who purchased a new BMW that had, unbeknownst to him, been repainted and this was not disclosed to him. The jury awarded millions in exemplary damages against BMW of North America.

This one ultimately ended up in the US Supreme Court, and led to the ruling that punitive damages must bear some relationship to the actual damages sustained.

My point here is that there exist legitimate reasons for "tort reform", but the McDonalds case isn't the best example. Rather, we should look at the class action lawsuit in Florida, where the class of injured smokers was awarded over ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in damages against Phillip Morris. If the verdict is upheld on appeal, that will wipe out the company, along with the hopes and dreams of investors in various institutions holding that particular stock, and leave other sick smokers in other jurisdictions with no compensation.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs' attorneys are wondering what kind of Jeep mods they can do with their 1/3 of that hundred billion.

There just have to be limits on this sort of thing!

Mike S.

[meatblanket]

I'm going to include a link to the American Trial Lawyers spin on the BMW v. Gore case, which tells about how poor Dr. Gore got hoodwinked by BMW.

Shame on BMW. But is it really a FOUR MILLION DOLLAR case?



Looks like the trial lawyers are trying to explain how this is a just result, but they will have a tougher time with this one than they did with the Lieback (McDonald's) case.

Mike S.

[Bermudacat]

Would I vote for Arnold for president? Yes

Should we ammend the constitution ever? NO!!



The constitution is a done doccument; let it be.........

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by Bermudacat
Would I vote for Arnold for president? Yes

Should we ammend the constitution ever? NO!!



The constitution is a done doccument; let it be.........

It is and was warranted, I think it's called the bill of rights if I'm not mistaken.

[Paradiddle]

An interesting note - the last Constitutional Ammendment was in 1992 and dealt with compensation.

AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

[Anders Karlsson]

Job Opening, Some English Required
Yanks are flops in the Oval Office. A green-carder may be just the ticket.
By Bill Maher
Bill Maher is host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."

February 27, 2004

This week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he supported a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born Americans to run for president. At first I was puzzled by his interest in this issue, but then I discovered a little-known fact about the man: He was born in Austria. You'd never know it from hearing him talk, but then he is a highly skilled actor.

And he makes a good point: The Constitution is full of silly, outdated stuff about separating church and state and not putting you in jail without a trial. It's full of lots of 18th century slang like "freedom" and "privacy."

And one of the silliest things of all is the part where it says foreigners can't be president. Arnold's right. The problem with presidents today is that they come off as a little too ? American. We've got that whole cowboy "bring it on" thing goin'. What we need is a presidency injected with a little sensitivity and worldly sophistication. And who better to deliver that than the grab-and-grope action hero from "Jingle All the Way"? Schwarzenegger mentioned the German-born Henry Kissinger as someone who would have made a great president had the Constitution not been in the way ? as if that ever stopped Kissinger.

Quite frankly, I think of foreigners as more educated and more socially progressive when it comes to issues such as abortion, euthanasia, birth control, the environment, religion, marriage, materialism, nuclear disarmament, poverty, human rights and life on Earth as we know it. They generally speak at least two languages and have, by definition, traveled outside the United States.

They're also less likely to wear spurs and a 4-foot-tall lime-green Styrofoam cowboy hat to an international conference and call everybody they meet there "Shooter!" Foreigners can't run for president? I believe only foreigners should run for president.

American presidents are like American beer ? bland, watered down and advertised to us as if we're morons. They come from boring places like Hope, Ark., Yorba Linda, Calif., and that town in Texas where President Bush was born: New Haven, Conn.

Face it, the presidency is a lousy job. And who does lousy jobs we don't want anymore better than foreigners?

The guy we've got doing it now works only part time. He spends half the day raising money from mining companies and the other half telling schoolchildren that Al Qaeda wants them dead, and he's in bed by 7!

The average Frenchman knows more geography than we do. The average Japanese knows more math. And the average Guatemalan is already here, cleaning your house and taking care of your kids. If we can trust them with our children, why not the White House? They can run it and clean it.

As a history buff, I've noticed that of all the worst presidents in U.S. history, every single one of them was an American. Doesn't anyone see a pattern here? Nixon, Carter, Hoover ? down the line ? Thomas E. Dewey, all native-born Americans. Which only goes to show that sometimes ethnic profiling ? well, sometimes it's just a matter of common sense.

Just once I'd like my president, the nation's president, to be like one of those presidents Italy always has, with the expensive suits and the permanent tan and the Versace mistress, and there's photos of them canoodling on a boat but nobody cares because hey, that's amore. Our guy gets impeached. In Italy, the stock market goes up.

It comes down to this: British people just sound better than we do. When they ask Tony Blair about weapons of mass destruction, the stuff he pulls out of his hat always sounds so much better than the stuff Bush pulls out of his hat. We're Americans, don't we deserve the best?

It's too late to undo the injustice that kept foreign-born presidential timber like Madeleine Albright and William Shatner out of the White House. But think of the future!

The job of president is just too important to be left to an American.