Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/400#post_3316529
Lets jump back to the wars in asia and europe you were never taught about. WW2, WW1, Korean. three major wars that after two of them we maintained a significant military presence that has prevent future wars. the other we did not...and it led to another war. So wait and see
Now on to your latest attempt at an intellectual point.
1. The military does not fall under constitutional law completely. If this were the case, the military personnel would have to abide by the laws of each state concerning drinking. This is not the case..where every citizen in the U.s. must wait till 21 due to state laws, The military personal on base have this right at 18. Thus this circumvents the 21st ammendment....because the Military does not fall under constitutional law....Even their court system is different.Thus don't ask dont tell is not covered by the constitution.
2. Go read the 21st amendment. Please do it. Because it is clear you have no clue what you are speaking of.All the 21st did was give control back to the states...so your state and county are circumventing nothing and doing what is within their rights. To circumvent the 21st at the federal level they would need to amend the constitution, meaning the would have to follow the process set forth by the constitution, meaning they are still following the constitution to do this. See, the framers knew some amendments would need changed or added as time went on, so they put in place a difficult process to meet this. Changing the constitution is not unconstitutional, as long as it is done by the constitutional process. If there was an amendment created stating we no longer could bare arms. This WOULD NOT be unconstitutional, as it was created through the amendment process.
Abortion has been ruled on by the supreme court..The court is appointed by the president and confirmed by congress...but a judge must retire, and to overturn the previous ruling we would need three justices to step down and be replaced by those with like views on abortion....This is almost as difficult as amendment change....HOWEVER if the supreme court did change and a case was presented, the judges ruled against abortion being constitutional, then the constitutional process has been served and this action is not unconstitutional. I am against abortion, but I have never stated it is unconstitutional...
So, again, which christian/religious views could be viewed unconstitutional.
You can't compare WW1, WW2, and what should've been termed the Korean Conflict to the 'war' we've been having in the Mid East. The Iraq and Afghan War is purely a religious conflict, one that has been going on WAY before we became a nation. If we stayed there another hundred years to "wait and see" if things would change, you'd be wasting your time and money. You can't convert someone to a different religious philosophy using a Democratic approach. If we pulled out of Europe today, no one would care. If we pulled out of South Korea, North Korea wouldn't immediately invade South Korea tomorrow. That nut running that country today is ready to spew a nuke at Alaska. If he really wanted to take back South Korea, he'd go ahead and do it. By the time the US retaliated, Sarah Palin and her house in Wasilla would be in the middle of a nuclear ash cloud.
Look, you asked what Amendments Christians views could be viewed unconstituional, and I showed you. You write some justification about exceptions to those Amendments to try and prove some point. Could Christians actually change these Amendments because they disagreed with them? Very doubtful. But the fact remains their VIEWS would be considered unconstituional in the context of the current amendment. That's the question you asked.
