SmarterthanYou
rebel
useless. if a majority of the population wants a law in effect, how does one change it 'legally'?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it time to restrict gun ownership?
- Thread starter Canceled.LTroll.28
- Start date
useless. if a majority of the population wants a law in effect, how does one change it 'legally'?
Canceled.LTroll.28
Banned
useless. if a majority of the population wants a law in effect, how does one change it 'legally'?
By legal means.
Here's an example. Slavery was legal. The majority accepted it, but a minority found it repugnant, and worked to change the law. Now slavery is illegal - it's even in the Constitution, I hear.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
By legal means.
Here's an example. Slavery was legal. The majority accepted it, but a minority found it repugnant, and worked to change the law. Now slavery is illegal - it's even in the Constitution, I hear.
if you think the process that actually occurred to make slavery illegal was legal, you've got a warped sense of history. it's also irrelevant.
Canceled.LTroll.28
Banned
if you think the process that actually occurred to make slavery illegal was legal, you've got a warped sense of history. it's also irrelevant.
So the proposal and ratification of the 13th Amendment was not legal?
Or relevant?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, it wasn't. it was instituted because the union government, after defeating the confederacy in the civil war, replaced the southern states representatives with hand picked members, not true representatives of the states themselves. Even if one could actually make that situation 'legal', its irrelevant because it was ultimately changed through force. I can only imagine the outrage, should force of arms be attempted to change 922 (o).So the proposal and ratification of the 13th Amendment was not legal?
in this instance, no.Or relevant?
Canceled.LTroll.28
Banned
no, it wasn't. it was instituted because the union government, after defeating the confederacy in the civil war, replaced the southern states representatives with hand picked members, not true representatives of the states themselves. Even if one could actually make that situation 'legal', its irrelevant because it was ultimately changed through force. I can only imagine the outrage, should force of arms be attempted to change 922 (o).
in this instance, no.
I don't concur.
The war and the defeat of the Confederacy were made necessary by the actions of the secessionists.
That does not make the 13th invalid.
Unjust laws can be changed.
Unfortunately, as you have rightly pointed out the opposite is also true.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I don't concur. The federal government had no constitutional authority to prevent any state from seceding.I don't concur.
The war and the defeat of the Confederacy were made necessary by the actions of the secessionists.
What are the two ways the constitution can be amended? both have to have approval of the people. The people in the former confederacy were not represented constitutionally.That does not make the 13th invalid.
usually at the cost of many lives. It's better to be on the side of the constitution to begin with, don't you think?Unjust laws can be changed.
Unfortunately, as you have rightly pointed out the opposite is also true.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
most likely.
Canceled.LTroll.28
Banned
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
America doesn’t need militias to protect the country. Is it time to restrict gun ownership?
Your not from here---right?
You sure do not think like an American if your answer to your question is yes---more like a East German.