Gotta love Jim DeMint

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sena...publicans-debt-ceiling-vote/story?id=13916811

Sounds like DeMint is going to hold the RINO's feet to the fire. Finally we have someone in Washington who understands what is a stake and is willing to fight for what is right. The only litmus test today should be standing firm on the debt and deficit.

But what about abortion, gays getting hitched and 10 Commandments at the corthouse? See, this is what drives me crazy, a Republican who is fiscally conservative but not interested in the social stuff is dubbed a 'RINO'.

But what about abortion, gays getting hitched and 10 Commandments at the corthouse? See, this is what drives me crazy, a Republican who is fiscally conservative but not interested in the social stuff is dubbed a 'RINO'.

Where does DeMint say anything about those things. Personally I believe Abortion should be a state issue and the federal government should butt out; gays should be able to get a state marriage license if they want, although I wonder why a license is needed at all for a personal relationship and a church should not be forced to recognize a relationship that violates their beliefs. As far as the 10 commandments, what is wrong with posting them in a public building? They pretty much sum up the rules that society is based on.
That said, I really don't think we can afford in this election to bog up in social issues. The only issue I see is putting our fiscal house in order. What good would it be for either side to "win" the abortion issue, for example, if the country is bankrupt and the economy is destroyed?

They pretty much sum up the rules that society is based on.

Really? Besides murder and theft none of the others are against the law.

Some of us think abortion is a civil rights issue, so the federal government has every right to be involved.

Really? Besides murder and theft none of the others are against the law.

While not against the law per se, do you really want to argue against honoring your parents, against people being a liar, committing adultery, being jealous of what others have? Society has been based on these concepts for thousands of years in one form or another. Do you have a problem with Hammurabi and his code being displayed in the courthouse? Same thing.

Some of us think abortion is a civil rights issue, so the federal government has every right to be involved.

By that line of thinking any issue can be a federal issue. Why have states and local governments at all?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the "States respectively, or to the people.

Somehow, it would appear that there are those in the United States who do not accept this Amendment to the Constitution or would choose to ignore it and its meaning.

While not against the law per se, do you really want to argue against honoring your parents, against people being a liar, committing adultery, being jealous of what others have? Society has been based on these concepts for thousands of years in one form or another. Do you have a problem with Hammurabi and his code being displayed in the courthouse? Same thing.

What if your parents are verbally or physically abusing you, do you still honor them?

No law against adultery and never will be because half the church membership would be behind bars.

No one likes a liar but this isnt peculiar to any one religion.

Jealousy is a human emotion that can not be outlawed.

Not going to engage in your hypotheticals, we're discussing the ten commandents.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the "States respectively, or to the people.

Somehow, it would appear that there are those in the United States who do not accept this Amendment to the Constitution or would choose to ignore it and its meaning.

The ignoring of this amendment has led directly to the massive growth in the federal government and with it our huge deficits and debt. People on both sides of most debates choose to ignore the 10th Amendment and press for a national solution. The people who want an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution are just as guilty as the liberals who view it as a civil rights issue. The plain fact is each state should handle it individually. Same goes with gay rights, "hate" crimes, drug laws, pornography laws etc etc etc. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any right given to the national government to regulate these issues.

By that line of thinking any issue can be a federal issue. Why have states and local governments at all?

Indeed the states' rights card is way overplayed by people who want to inflict civil rights abuses at the local level without any regard for the constitution. It's easy for the state bully to be oppressive if there's nobody bigger (i.e. the federal government) to stop him/her. I've never put much value on the concept of states' rights. It's synonomous with slavery and always will be.

Islamic laws are also directly based on the Code of Hammurabi. Society has been based on their concepts for thousands of years. Are you okay with posting those in the courthouse?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the "States respectively, or to the people.

Somehow, it would appear that there are those in the United States who do not accept this Amendment to the Constitution or would choose to ignore it and its meaning.

Didn't President Reagan Violate the 10th amendment when he force Florida to enforce the 55 mph speed limit by threatening to with hold federal highway funds. He was a Republican, right? I disagreed with him over that very issue and had voted for him.

Where does DeMint say anything about those things. Personally I believe Abortion should be a state issue and the federal government should butt out; gays should be able to get a state marriage license if they want, although I wonder why a license is needed at all for a personal relationship and a church should not be forced to recognize a relationship that violates their beliefs. As far as the 10 commandments, what is wrong with posting them in a public building? They pretty much sum up the rules that society is based on.
That said, I really don't think we can afford in this election to bog up in social issues. The only issue I see is putting our fiscal house in order. What good would it be for either side to "win" the abortion issue, for example, if the country is bankrupt and the economy is destroyed?

Let's carve the Koran into the Capitol steps then, and put the Scientology logo above the white house.

What if your parents are verbally or physically abusing you, do you still honor them?

No law against adultery and never will be because half the church membership would be behind bars.

No one likes a liar but this isnt peculiar to any one religion.

Jealousy is a human emotion that can not be outlawed.

Not going to engage in your hypotheticals, we're discussing the ten commandents.

it's all in the good book, poppy. free your mind to be stupid

The ignoring of this amendment has led directly to the massive growth in the federal government and with it our huge deficits and debt. People on both sides of most debates choose to ignore the 10th Amendment and press for a national solution. The people who want an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution are just as guilty as the liberals who view it as a civil rights issue. The plain fact is each state should handle it individually. Same goes with gay rights, "hate" crimes, drug laws, pornography laws etc etc etc. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any right given to the national government to regulate these issues.

An interesting read regarding the constitution as a blueprint:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

"Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say."

.

The framers specifically made provisions to interpret and revise the Constitution for those very reasons. The Bill of Rights was added to get support because even at the time they were ratifying it, they knew the Constitution wasn't perfect.

The framers specifically made provisions to interpret and revise the Constitution for those very reasons. The Bill of Rights was added to get support because even at the time they were ratifying it, they knew the Constitution wasn't perfect.

You are correct. There is a provision for changing the document-amend it. However, following the demise of the ERA liberals figured out that this process was difficult and so they have used the courts and executive fiat to accomplish their goal of enlarging government.

It is not just liberals and that isn't anything new. John Marshall set that precedent back in the early 1800s and he is why our court system has so much power.