“..the increasing impatience among the American people for the utterly failed policy of multi-culturalism.”

It seems to have worked pretty good until now; unless you don’t believe that America is the greatest country on the planet?

“..leftwing… that being that change must be enforced, “

You mean like a constitutional amendment calling for English as the official language which would require whole new government bureaucracy with official standards on usage, and laws that prevent business to conduct business based on the free market (bilingual services).

Mark, you really are a Commie.

"English is, of course, the principle language of the United States."

That should be "principal."

And that's where I stopped reading your post.

I was at a high school graduation the other night, and the speaker for the class, was accompanied with a hispanic speaker. They would take turns reading paragraphs and this went on for over 20 minutes. As I listened, I was wondereing how this would be if they also had to read in Japanese, Chinese, German, African, and Bush speak.

I was at a high school graduation the other night, and the speaker for the class, was accompanied with a hispanic speaker. They would take turns reading paragraphs and this went on for over 20 minutes. As I listened, I was wondereing how this would be if they also had to read in Japanese, Chinese, German, African, and Bush speak.

Hablo espanol?

Is the official language in France French? Is the official language in Russia Russian.Is the official language in Japan Japanese? I assume so.

The official languuage of America should be English. No need for an amendment. Anyone idiotic enough to come here and expect us to learn japanese so we can understand them is nuts. Our house, our language. If one visits another country they are expected to speak the native tongue, not make a stink about it.

"English is, of course, the principle language of the United States."

That should be "principal." And that's where I stopped reading your post.

With 85% of the people believing that English is and should be our official language, now's the time to get that Constitutional Amendment moving and ratified.

Americans should get used to Amending the Constitution when it's needed. That will stop the activist liberal "law giver" judges from doing it for them by their 5 to 4, ONE VOTE decisions!

Republicans... let's get that Amendment moving. Let the Democrats vote against it and the beliefs of 85% of the American voters!!!!!

AAR

the increasing impatience among the American people for the utterly failed policy of multi-culturalism.

Umm I don't know if you are familiar with the founding and development of the United States of America, but never in the entire history of the country has there not been multi-culturalism. If you really think the US has been a representation of the inability for Americans of all walks to embrace and cooperate with each other, I wonder why you are here. America has embraced its variety through out it's history, and has succeeded all the more beacause of it. Are you not aware that entire regions of the country spoke Dutch and German? Its getting a little tiring having to beat it into your head that Leave it to Beaver respresented your portion of the population, not the country as a whole.

most adult citizens do NOT properly speak the king's english either.

this is moot since repeated studies show that by the 3d generation, immigrant grandchildren speak exclusively english. and if spanish-speaking citizens become the majority, they'll simply overturn it.

hope this waste-of-time legislation makes u feel good...oh, wait, another effort to "energise the base" eh?

I'd hate to think what'd happen to the base if a gay, spanish-speaking, illegal mexican burned the flag.

maybe lets concern ourselves with important issues, shall we(?)like: balancing the budget, actually shrinking the federal govt (shrinking, not reducing projected future growth ala clinton), states rights, a constitional judiciary (not like the shameful shivo intervention), an iraqi endgame, etc...you know, the things reagan's party stood for (what a distant memory).

This also works out to an excellent argument against the whole leftwing worldview - that being that change must be enforced, even if people don't want it. This "its for your own good" attitude which the left has inflicted on America - mostly via judicial fiat - begins to wear thin.

-- This is one thing I can never understand, how conservatives can take an issue of minimal overall importance to people and then try to make it look like it is the liberals that are trying to mess with things.

This constitutional ammendment is a pure conservative ideal, it is not even in the top 100 list for liberals.

You have had English as your "official" language for years, the vast majority of residents speak it. Then you have Spanish as your secondary language and also a number of minority ones. Here in Canada, we have English and French secondary

It is ABSOLUTELY unconstitutional and also unamerican to try to add english as the official language in the constitution. This is because you would be FORCING people to learn to speak it and you would be setting up a policy where you would have a language police, like they have in some parts of Quebec where business can literally be fined for having signs in english as they have laws requiring all french

“Multiculturalism” should be advocating or encouraging the integration of people of different countries, ethnic groups, and religions into all areas of society, unfortunately for us it is not. The common (neorad) philosophy is that each culture is equal and distinct, and that no culture is better or worse than any other. Ethnic enclaves are encouraged to keep their identity and the diversity of cultures is celebrated rather than encouraging integration for fear of losing one’s identity into the maelstrom of Americanism.
This Balkanization of cultures is what passes as diversity sensitivity these days; the majority must accept the bastardization of both English and Spanish, doing justice to neither language and clouding the meanings of both. Barney, we already have a giant government bureaucracy established for the control, usage and standard of the English language, it’s called the public school system.
I would, based on belief not support another Constitutional amendment for the purpose of establishing an “official language” for the reasons Mark stated, as well as the idea that States could also establish secondary or State’s specific official languages; Bronx’ “See ya’ some more” would have to be codified next to “well, sha ..” in California.
axis, in your usual stupidity, a Constitutional amendment makes it “Constitutional.” Christ, you’re an insufferable nit-wit.

After careful consideration, “principal” or “principle” are both appropriate, depending on whether Mark meant “primary,” or “standard.”

When I was a young lad in Italy (my dad was in the Navy), I HAD to learn Italian to speak to the Italian kids I played with (and that's where I learned about soccer). I had to learn some Amharic when I lived in Ethiopia three years later.
Why is it so difficult for the el cubos to understand that in order to succeed and live, you need to learn the language which bonds us together? That language is English.

"When in Rome...."

Bane, that is not what I mean and you know it.

What I was saying is that it is unconstitutional in the current interpretation of the constitution to propose such an ammendment.

As would one stating that only whites are allowed to have kids.

axis - what a joke coming from somebody is Canada. Tell us how well the whole language thing worked outfor you guys up north.

You guys make me laugh, You make it seem like immigrants somehow aren't trying to learn the language. I don't need to repeat the studies that show immigrants today are learning the language at faster speeds than previous generations.

My grandfather was from Cuba, and he had learned the language inside of 6 months, enough to volunteer for the army, and raise a family who NEVER spoke spanish in the house.

This is just another silly ploy to take attention from issues you can't solve, you've had twelve years as a majority, and all you can do is start wars and spend money. LOL!!

"This also works out to an excellent argument against the whole leftwing worldview - that being that change must be enforced, even if people don't want it. This "its for your own good" attitude which the left has inflicted on America - mostly via judicial fiat - begins to wear thin."

You're right Mark, let's reintroduce slavery and keep the women home barefoot and pregnant.

axis,
You are either incredibly stupid or certifiably insane,

What I was saying is that it is unconstitutional in the current interpretation of the constitution to propose such an amendment."

It’s unconstitutional to amend the Constitution?

Our Congress represents the people; they are there to do the legislative work we require. In this modern era, it is not uncommon for Congressmen to know very quickly what it is the people want. Currently, the people seem to want the “official” language to be English. I would expect nothing less than to have Congress take up this issue, debate the merits of the peoples’ wishes, and then decide if this is to become law. As a representative form of government I also expect Congress to truthfully weigh the benefits and detriments of the issue and, should our representatives decide that there are more problems associated with the idea then payback, I would want them to reject it.

The same hold true for the one man one woman marriage; the American people want Congress to debate the issue, vote and then move on. In fact, everything the neorads are decrying as political posturing is essentially what the representatives were hired to do; represent the will of the people and then decide what can be done, what should be done and what cannot be done.

AAR has pointed out that if the representatives cannot or will not act in the peoples’ interest, we can hold a Constitutional convention to force the issue. But that requires even more dedications to the cause than most Americans are willing to expend.

TEO and Ohio want only their issues discussed, thus thwarting the purpose of Congress, and although I agree that many other issues need to be given consideration, many issues will not be given their proper due, because the party out of power has the ability to endlessly engage in demagoguery in the media. It only shows how uninformed some people are.

There is, however no excuse for axis, a broken clock is right twice a day; but axis manages to prove that sentient life requires cognitive thought. axis mental acumen leaves one to wonder how a mind with that low of power output can manage to maintain bodily functions.

No, its just, according to TEO and company, unconstitutional to ammend the constitution in a way that liberals don't like.

As Teddy Roosevelt said:

""In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN FLAG BURNING HEADS TO SENATE FLOOR!!!

Bane of Liberals' Existence,

Judging from some of axis' posts in the last week or so, I think either: 1) axis has finally lost it, or 2) axis has lost some or all of his research staff and writers -- possibly on vacation, or 3) axis has been kicked out of "the axis"!

The time will come when we have the opportunity to start amending the Constitution and put a stop to some of the damage liberals have and are doing to America. As I have said before, the biggest issue for me is to stop the activist judges who have usurped the power of "law givers". In the meantime, I think we have to take advantage of every opportunity to work the individual issues.

I think enough people would support an Amendment to make English our national language if only our leadership would start pushing the issue.

Based on the latest news, however, an AMENDMENT to allow Congress to BAN BURNING of the AMERICAN FLAG could become the first to make it; although, it looks like it still may be one vote short. The following is a quote from Reuters (Google News to find others.)

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A measure that would change the U.S. Constitution to let Congress ban burning the American flag was sent to the Senate floor on Thursday, setting up an election-year debate."

"The amendment has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives by the needed two-thirds margin. The bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, said he believes it will pass the Senate."

"'I know we have more than 67 votes, if people are allowed to vote their conscience,' Hatch said after the Judiciary Committee's 11-7 vote, which fell largely along party lines."

Another site says: "On this day after Flag Day, vote-counters on the Senate floor said the measure this time could be within one vote of passing."

I know that is a free speech to axis de Canada, but I believe there are more than enough ways to express one's hatred for America that burning the flag. It's time we start teaching, or at least requiring, a little respect from our liberal citizens!

It won't take many more liberal Senators and Representatives being voted out of office for the American people to start taking our country back from the liberals! We can start by working on any liberal Democrats who vote against the Amendment to ban flag burning.

You are absolutely 100% right about people being uninformed. The liberal Democrats count on that for their votes and support. We've just got to work harder on educating the American people to what's happening, especially with those liberal judge "law givers" who axis (and all liberals) so adore -- until their judges aren't appointed that is!!!

AAR

axis,

Did that Constitutional Amendment to BAN FLAG BURNING sneak up on you?

It's about time we put a stop to liberals desecrating the American flag, don't you think so?

AAR

How about Hilary's take on this...what a crazy broad she is.

She supports legislation against flag burning...GOOD.

She doesn't support an amendment against flag burning...huh??

Her argument is that the legislation would happen quicker. Uhm, yeah it would except until a liberal judge turns it over and then stuck in the courts for 10 years.

Why wouldn't you do both at the same time. Pass the legislation and have an amendment process start also (takes usually 4 or 5 years). That way if she truly supported no flag burning, it not only becomes LAW, it becomes part of the constitution so no one can overturn it.

She's becoming Kerryesque.

I really like Thai food -- and Chinese food, and Indian food, and Mexican food, and a whole bunch of others. I'm not so fond of hamburgers. Can we exempt food from the "multiculturalism" debate? Can we all agree not to try to pass a constitutional amendment naming ketchup as the official condiment?

Rico...many of us welcome Multiculturalism. I live in a city where as a caucasian I am in the minority. I love it.

Guess what, everyone speaks English first. This is about keeping some societal semblance homogenous for the good of society, the good of the economy, etc.

Tedde Roosevelt was right then and he's still right today.

(Getting more B4B server errors. Hopefully this isn't a double post.)

jlear,

RE: "The official language of America should be English. No need for an amendment. Anyone idiotic enough to come here and expect us to learn Japanese so we can understand them is nuts. Our house, our language. If one visits another country they are expected to speak the native tongue, not make a stink about it."

It isn't that simple. You are trying to think logically and logic does not work with liberals.

The average, every day American knows that English is the language of America. The problem is, the liberal courts don't understand that or they choose to ignore it. The courts are ordering federal, state, and local governments to provide services in languages other than English. We have to provide interpreters at taxpayer expense. We have to provide ballots in Spanish. Schools are ordered to teach classes in Spanish.

It used to be that people who came to America wanted to BE Americans. They came here and learned English. English provides a common means for all Americans to communicate with each other. That's not the case any longer. There's nothing that says Americans shouldn't learn other languages. They should be encouraged to do so.

Would you like a recent example?

Did you hear uproar, possible legal action, and court case against Geno's Steaks in Philadelphia for posting a "speak English" sign at their restaurant. They aren't refusing to serve anyone, just asking that anyone who orders do so in English!

Does that seem like a reasonable request in America -- an English speaking country? Absolutely! Would you think that could cause anyone in America to be taken to court or face legal action? You wouldn't think so, would you? Something like that can't happen in America, right? WRONG!

Not to the liberal city of Philadelphia you don't tell your customers to speak English! They want those signs taken down. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

In fact, Philadelphia's Commission on Human Relations has filed a pair of discrimination complaints against Geno's Steaks over its policy of asking its customers to order in English.

The city claims the restaurant is guilty of "denying service to someone because of his or her national origin, and having printed material making certain groups of people feel their patronage is unwelcome." PREPOSTEROUS!

Check Google news for more information and stories.

Yes, the liberal left is TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY NUTS -- over any and everything. Logic doesn't work or apply to liberals. The only way to stop them and their activist liberal judge "law givers" is to start Amending the Constitution. One amendment after another until they are stopped -- permanently!!!

By the way, I heard about this first on Rush Limbaugh. The liberal left can hate him, but the fact is you can learn some real news about what's happening in America by listening. You would be amazed at all of the things liberals have up their sleeves, and Rush lets people know about it.

AAR

Let's make english numero uno! (cool bumber sticker I saw)

Kahn says:
"what a joke coming from somebody is Canada. Tell us how well the whole language thing worked outfor you guys up north."

The whole language thing? You mean the whole language law thing? You mean, having laws about what language you should speak worked out badly? You're kidding me, as a linguist I would just never have guessed.

Or did you not realize that's what the problem was up north? Did you miss the post where axis criticized Quebec's language laws?

Oh, and jlear, yes, the official language of France is French. And guess what that means. It means Breton speakers, who are very much native-born, haven't been allowed to listen to the radio in their own language, or teach it to each other in school, or watch it on TV. That's how languages die out. What a fab idea.

Warrior said: "Rico...many of us welcome Multiculturalism."

Who is the "us" of which you speak? Is "us" white folks? Rich folks? Republicans? Neocons? Rich white Republican neocons? I actually conform to at least three out of four of those groups, depending upon how they are defined. My "official condiment" post was intended to be absurd. But one sometimes wonders how absurd some people took it.

And what exactly do you mean by "multiculturalism"? I ask because frankly, I think you will get as many answers as people you ask. Is there any general agreement at all? If not, then how can its relative success or failure be determined? Mark claims "multiculturalism" has "utterly failed". If you can't gauge it, how do you know it has utterly failed?

Warrior also said: "Guess what, everyone speaks English first."

EVERYONE?? Well then, what's the problem? Is it Garden Grove? Westminster? Santa Ana? As I'm sure you know, there are neighborhoods in Garden Grove and Westminster where even the street signs are in Vietnamese. But still, most of the people who live there speak English. At least to some extent. And that is overwhelmingly true of the second generation. The same is true of Santa Ana, which is predominantly Hispanic.

Is is the German district in Milwaukee a problem? The Polish district in Chicago? Chinatown in New York or San Francisco? The bayous of Louisiana?

Are they utterly failed examples of multiculturalism? I really don't understand the concept.

Who is it that's saying that immigrants, by and large, resist acculturation? I'm sure there are some, but what are the numbers? And how does one define acculturation?

You Mercans better get you act together on the language issue. Definitely proclaim English as the offical language. Or else you will end up with the farce of bilingualism we have up here in Canada. Hey, I sense the Francophones in the New England area are pushing to revive French and next thing you know, they will want offical status. It is not just the Sapnish language you will have to deal with.

axis - what a joke coming from somebody is Canada. Tell us how well the whole language thing worked outfor you guys up north.

-- We don't have any language problems here, products are required to be in both english and french, which pleases both anglophones and francophones. Certain areas of quebec are hardline franophone communities, but thats about it.

It’s unconstitutional to amend the Constitution?

-- The entire spirit of the constitution, net of the prohibition one is all about individual rights, liberities and freedoms.

It is NOT about restricting rights, persecuting gays, or making pregnant women slave vessels to an unborn fetus.

All you fascists want to do is destroy the spirit of the constitution and pervert it to achieve your own selfish desires.

axis,

"fascists" -- Another liberal code word from the liberal play book intended to discredit the person(s). Used by liberals when liberals disagree with the views and opinions of their "victims" -- i.e., character assassination!

It's not the spirit of the Constitution that concerns me and that is a threat to all Americans. It's your liberal activist "law giver" judges who are causing the problems. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have the problems that now require amendments to stop.

It's time Americans clearly understand the problem and fix it -- AMEND THE CONSTITUTION -- one amendment after another after another -- until liberalism and it's agenda is stopped and the Constitution repaired!!!

axis, did you hear? Higher fines for "broadcast indecency"! Now let's get on with that Amendment to ban flag burning!

AAR

My dad immigrated thru Ellis Island from Denmark. He didn't speak a word of English. He learned it in a hurry as he was not allowed to speak his native language in American schools. That was just fine with my dad. He wanted to become an American and speaking the language is just the first step in assimilation.
The Constitution gives each citizen inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights are a precious gift to us. Amendments are added as we the people progress. The Constitution is the greatest document any nation could have. But, even Constitutional scholars disagree on points in the Constitution. axis you are NO Constitutional scholar. You lose credibility when you call people names. My suggestion is that you grow up-- eh!

It's not the spirit of the Constitution that concerns me and that is a threat to all Americans. It's your liberal activist "law giver" judges who are causing the problems. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have the problems that now require amendments to stop.

-- Thank you for finally standing up and admitting that you wipe your A$$ with the constitution and do not give a crap about the rights and freedoms that it gives to all Americans. Thank you for your honesty after trying to hide your fascist desires behind the constitution before.

Thank you also for showing your ignorance to all those here, where you state that your believe that your fascist views are shared by "all americans" This is so blatently false, which is why nothing you want passed has been in decades. The majority of americans do not see things your way, in fact you only represent 15-20% of America.

It's time Americans clearly understand the problem and fix it -- AMEND THE CONSTITUTION -- one amendment after another after another -- until liberalism and it's agenda is stopped and the Constitution repaired!!!

-- Thats rich. You seek to "Repair" the constitution, no doubt broken by the democratic founding fathers when they declared freedoms and rights to all. You want to "right" all those wrongs, bring back good old fashioned conservative segregation and slavery, make it legal to execute people who are homosexual or live immoral lifestyles, execute those that sin or live against the church docturines.

Right on! Just like Nazi Germany! Hail Hitler, er ah I mean AAR!

Now you see why I call you a fascist. Its exactly what you are AAR. You are an all american Hitler.

axis,

Rave on, axis. Rave on. There must be a full moon tonight!

My, my, my. So many hateful words and statements in one post. Let me go check the liberal play book!

I must be making progress though. Now I AM Hitler, but then to you, EVERYONE is Hitler!

The fact is, like it or not, the Constitution does not make your liberal activist judges America's "law givers"!

It is liberals like you who have caused the divisiveness and hate in America today.

It is liberals like you who have weakened America's once strong values and morals.

It is liberals like you who would destroy our military might.

It is liberals like you who have destroyed the work ethics of tens of millions of Americans and created generations of welfare families.

It is liberals like you who have ruined our educational system.

It is liberals like you who have destroyed the very concepts established by the U.S. Constitution, and it's time we repaired the damage you and all of those like you have caused and continue to cause.

It is liberals like you who are attacking and trying to destroy God and religion in America, especially Christianity.

You want a godless, immoral, anything goes society ruled by your liberal judge "law givers" who issue their mandates and instructions in accordance with your religion of liberalism!!!!!

You want the U.S. to be ruled by judges. Fine... I'll appoint the judges. After all, a judge is a judge is a judge. Right?

Surely you don't think you should establish your "rule by judges" and then think that you get to appoint the judges to impose your ideology, philosophy, and agenda as you see fit and please, do you? Surely you don't believe that!

Until then it's way past time to start and keep Amending the Constitution... one amendment after another after another until the damage done by liberals like you has been repaired... however long that takes!!!

Oh, but then YOU ARE A CANADIAN and HAVE NO BUSINESS MEDDLING IN AMERICA'S BUSINESS!

Go play with the French or some of your other anti-American U.N friends!!!

Go exercise your anti-American hatred and free speech -- burn an American flag while it's still legal.

AAR

Oh,axis,

I almost forgot.

You never did give us your definition of a "conservative judge".

How about "originalist judge" and "strict constructionist judge" while you're at it?

AAR

Axis,

You really get tiresome at times...

You really get tiresome at times...

-- Just telling it like it is Mark. Interesting how you told me a while ago, that you woulddie beforelivingunder Hitler's fascism, but you are right down at home with Christofascists like AAR that wants to abolish the constitution and give government absolute, king like power.

Kind of hypocritical isn't it Mark?

'there`s no problem with language up here (in canada)' axis

Yeah...that bilingual thing has really brought Quebec and the rest of the country together in a spriit of brotherly love.

And if Canada isn`t proof enough that English should be our OFFICIAL national language then all we need do is look to Belgium. Dual language (French/Flemish) is also a fact of life there. And now there is serious talk of Belgium splitting along language lines to create two new countries, one French speaking and the other Flemish speaking.

Seems its difficult to get along if you can't communicate with your neighbor. If English is not made the official language Southern Calif. will split frm Northern Cal. in 20 years, if not sooner.

axis,

Anyone who has read my posts on many threads knows that I WANT the CONSTITUTION FOLLOWED and adhered to as it was intended.

Anyone who has read your posts knows that you want ACTIVIST LIBERAL JUDGES to MAKE the LAWS -- CONTRARY to the CONSTITUTION!!!

The Constitution establishes the Legislative branch -- Congress -- as the one who makes America's laws -- NOT JUDGES as YOU would LIKE. YOU want and believe that COURTS -- liberal ACTIVIST JUDGES -- make the law. Judges who were APPOINTED -- NOT ELECTED -- who serve LIFE TERMS, and who cannot be REMOVED by the PEOPLE! You have ADMITTED it many times.

And who elects the Representatives and Senators who make our laws under the concept of our Constitution? The American PEOPLE DO. The American VOTERS. That's how the Constitution is written. That's how the Constitution is supposed to work. We are not a nation governed and ruled by a handful of liberal activist judges as YOU WOULD LIKE!

The American PEOPLE make our laws through their legally elected members of Congress.

And if the AMERICAN PEOPLE want the Constitution changed, THEY -- NOT your activist liberal "law giver" JUDGES -- AMEND the CONSTITUTION.

YOU want a 5 to 4 ruling by bunch of activist judges to be the "rule of law" and "the law of the land." You want 300,000,000 (THREE HUNDRED MILLION) Americans to abide and live by laws created at the stroke of a pen by a SINGLE JUDGE majority. In effect, a handful of judges, in strategic locations, can make the laws for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of AMERICANS!!!

You want a handful of activist liberal judges to effectively AMEND the CONSTITUTION by a stroke of their activist liberal pens -- through your LIBERAL CONCEPT of a "living Constitution" -- and then force Congress and American citizens to Amend the Constitution to over rule those liberal activist "law givers".

YOUR CONCEPT of a "living Constitution" is in effect a "DEAD CONSTITUTION"! Under your concept, there are no guaranteed protections and rights. The Constitution does not mean the same or provide the same rights and protections today, as it did yesterday, or as it will tomorrow (figuratively speaking, axis).

Why? Because the meaning constantly changes depending on what those activist judges believe is BEST for Americans at the time they made their last decision. The meaning changes at the stroke of THEIR pens. Who knows how your judges will rule tomorrow or how they will "amend" the Constitution -- again, and again, and again.

You want a handful of ACTIVIST LIBERAL JUDGES to IMPOSE your LIBERAL AGENDA on ALL AMERICANS!

Not only do you want the activist liberal judges to MAKE the LAW... you have the nerve and gall to believe that you LIBERALS SHOULD SELECT and APPOINT those ACTIVIST LIBERAL JUDGES!!!

IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY...AXIS!!! IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO WORK THAT WAY!!!

YOUR ACTIVIST LIBERAL judges DO NOT MAKE LAWS!!!!!

You liberals want to decide YOUR liberal AGENDA, SELECT the activist liberal JUDGES, APPOINT the activist liberal JUDGES, and then have them IMPOSE your liberal AGENDA on America!!!

That is unconstitutional, axis.

That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAR

axis,

Do you know that you stutter -- in your writing at least -- when you get angry?

AAR

Yeah...that bilingual thing has really brought Quebec and the rest of the country together in a spriit of brotherly love.

-- Language actually plays a smaller part of it, its rather their culture, which they view as distinct from anglophone culture and you have a small minority of hard line seperatists that think that Quebec can exist as an independant country

Axis,
Your contention that the amending the Constitution is unconstitutional is absurd; your dogged defense of that absurdity is insane, to assail someone for pointing out your derangement is narcissism , your deflection of guilt by wild accusations of Nazism is neorad , thanks for not disappointing.

AAR,
I’m sorry to part company with other conservatives on the amendment issue, and I’d rather bite my tongue off than admit that I agree with Hilary, but here it is.

A constitutional amendment to protect the Liberty Bell, or Constitutional guarantees that the actual Constitution is protected would be worthy; but a Flag burning amendment would grant Constitutional status not to an object, but instead to many indefinable or barely definable objects. The precise description would be the American Flag, but which one? If a flag is printed in a newspaper would it be violation of Federal law to burn the paper?

Flag burning, as despicable as it is, is still a form of speech. It may be offensive but the act, in and of itself cannot harm an individual or a group. The sight of the Flag burning in protest may cause anger bordering on rage to those of us that fought for it but the discomfort is with the message the burning is intended to elicit. It is already illegal to incite violence; if a neorad decides to stand at the entrance of Camp Pendleton and burn an American Flag he alone would be responsible for the carnage that would ensue. I would hope that, after he’s released from the hospital he would be charged with “hate speech” or at the very least disturbing the peace or inciting a riot.

I do not favor Constitutional Amendments based on prevailing, transitory issues, and I do not mean to make light of the angst caused by the bastardization of our language or disrespect to our symbols, but I personally feel this is not the place to use the extraordinary power the people have to amend the Constitution and possibly change the nature of our government.

Bane of Liberals' Existence,

That's o.k., even conservative won't always agree on everything.

If I understand the amendment, which I haven't read, it gives Congress the authority to ban flag burning. Probably to address the issues you mentioned -- many of which are valid -- and which make it difficult to craft the specific ban. If Congress has the authority, however, they can change and modify it, or rescind it, as they and the American people desire.

To me, it's a matter of principle. One small way to express my dislike for the way liberals have abused their free speech rights. I've had it with the liberal's free speech trashing of America and everything American.

It wasn't until the liberals decided to start their campaigns of the 60's that flag burning would even have been considered... like gay marriage would never have been though of until liberals started pushing it as a "protected right under the Constitution."

If nothing else, we need some practice in making those amendments so we can start on more.

I'll keep rooting for the Amendment, but I understand your position too.

I look forward to your comments regardless... especially on those issues on which we do agree.

AAR

Bane of Liberals' Existence,

I posted a reply to your comment, but between the time I started and the time I finished the B4B server logged me out of my TypeKey login -- sending that comment to the queue -- or wherever they go for a short rest. Hopefully, it will show up later. If not, I'll repost it later.

The amendment actually seems quite innocuous (but I didn't want to tell axis that!). It would have to be to get within one vote of passing. The amendment reads...

ARTICLE —‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’

As I understand it, the amendment dose not ban flag burning, per se, but rather gives Congress the authority to decide the issue and removes it from the liberal courts. Will congress ever succeed in banning whatever they decide is desecration? Who knows. I'm sure there will be a Democratic filibuster, and when Democrats regain control, they would probably repeal the law.

The measure would overturn a 1989 Supreme Court ruling. The justices, voting 5-4, struck down a Texas law that barred flag burning, ruling it restricted freedom of expression. Supporters argue the proposed amendment would restore the power of Congress to decide the flag-burning issue, not unelected judges.

A couple of comments from one news article...

"Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, who has supported legislation to ban flag burning, argued the amendment was too vague because it doesn't define desecration."

-- The amendment leaves it up to Congress to work out the details and decide what is meant by "desecration." To me, that means it can be changed or modified or deleted later if Congress so decides.

"That could permit the prosecution of women 'wearing a very skimpy bathing suit' decorated with the flag's stars and stripes, he said. 'Is that desecration of the flag?'"

"'When you get to a bikini or a bathing suit, it's not a flag, it's a bikini,' said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the only Democrat to support the measure."

-- I'm surprised that Feinstein supports it.

Going back to your comments about the Liberty Bell or the Constitution, I don't support a flag burning ban because I want to ban the destruction of a "material thing". I support it because our kids (and college professors) need to learn some respect -- or rather a little less disrespect -- for our nation.

It shows too that if people continue to abuse their rights of free speech, those rights can and might be taken away in the future. This doesn't do that. There will still be many, many ways they can continue to express their hate for America. They can probably burn a "virtual flag" on their computer if they choose, just not the blatant, public, anti-American burning they would prefer. They can probably run videos of prior burnings, etc.

AAR

AAR,
It’s a thorny issue, I agree.
Much thornier is the fact that we cannot discuss this or any other issue on which there is disagreement without the neorads bouncing off of the virtual walls with unbridled hatred for all things Bush.

I’ve had many fine discussions with Ricorun and others here in which point and counterpoint were made; Rico has convinced me to re-think some positions and hopefully I’ve convinced him to re-think some of his. But these discussions are short lived when steve or axis jump in with the tired old moveon.org talking points, ignore the voluminous evidence we present and continue to quote their unhinged leftist gurus. Or have Turd-eye take his latest contrarian stand against anything that we stand for, without benefit of logic or reason, then misrepresent our argument because it doesn’t fit his latest straw man. Barney can be counted on to post another irrelevant link to a poll or an article about some “conservative” that disagrees with other conservatives; this because Barney and other neorads don’t understand you and I can disagree on points and still agree in principle.

I work at a bastion of liberalism; you would be surprised to learn that there are countless students at these ivy-covered halls that are closer to our philosophy than the liberal mentors that sit in judgment of them. The students understand the mine-field they face and regurgitate the neorad mantra until they can be rid of these pony-tailed dinosaurs of the 60’s. (I serve on several committees with these tired old hippies and feminist loons, and they are as comical in person as you might imagine. What’s really hysterical is when there are several of them posturing like peacocks for the attention of the Chancellor with increasing absurdity of intellect; trying to out-liberal one another, truly hilarious.)

But, back to the issue of the Constitutional amendment; I felt as you do that the amendment process takes the interpretation out of the hands of activist judges until I spoke with two Constitutional lawyers. They convinced me that the rulings from the bench on these issues are as transitory as the problem itself. That the flag issue can be adjudicated based on ancillary issues not relating to the flag but on the intent of the act. Like hate-speech; the speech itself is protected but the act of inciting is unlawful.

These days, I try to consider what two or three generations from now would make of our Amendment; if they read it and say, “What the hell was that all about?” then we’ve failed to make our point. Respect cannot be legislated, but disrespect can be beaten out of a long-haired, maggot-infested, good-time-rock-and-roll, hippy. I’d rather engage in that (physical) debate then legislate or amend my way into their soft neorad skulls.

I find me so pithy.

AAR, why would you bother with flag burning, there is about 0-1 incidents of flag burning a year, last one was in 2005.

Nit-wit,
God, you're stupid.

I see a lot of those are cases of drunks, arson and vandalism Bane. Theres only one or two that are purposeful flag burning incidents for a political end

Axis,
Your contention that there have been no flag burnings is absurd; your dogged defense of that absurdity is insane, to assail someone for pointing out your derangement is narcissism, thanks for not disappointing.

I believe axis has proved my contention that reasonable debate is not possible as long as these neorads are around.
Faced with overwhelming evidence, they stubbornly repeat their tiresome mantras.
Go away, seriously go ... go now!

axis,

Give 'em time. Give 'em time. You'll eventually have all of the examples you could ever want or need. I can't say when it will happen, but it WILL happen. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal -- as the Great Rush Limbaugh would say.

And we'll be ready for 'em... rounding 'em up, haulin' 'em off in cattle trucks, and sending them to the hoosegow. Repeat defenders get life in prison. Just hope that Bane captures them instead of me.

You really should listen to Rush. He discusses sports and other topics as well as news, and his news reports are 98.5% accurate... unlike the liberal media. If nothing else, you will hear the Conservative version of the news and can get better prepared for your deposits on B4B!

AAR

I never said that there were not any Bane, I said that is was virtually non-existant.

10 incidents in total in 2005, most of them drunks, vandals or arson.

So, 10 incidents divided by 290 000 000 people and you believe that this is an important enough thing to warrant a constitutional ammendment? If it was happening on a regular basis, that would be a different story, however these are extremely isolated incidents.

In case you are trying to indicate that it would be liberals burnign these flags, think again, they are much more likely to be a staunch constervative militant type that indulges in such behavior.

axis,

RE: "...they are much more likely to be a staunch constervative militant type..."

Now, where did you see that?

All of the ones I have seen burning the flag were obviously a bunch of crazed liberals, mostly brainwashed college students, under the influence of some nutty kook liberal professors!

Speaking of nutty professors, did you see where a university committee has recommended firing Ward Churchill? I didn't need any university committee to know that need to be done years ago.

Perhaps you were talking about those Americans burning the Mexican flag. Now those might in fact be conservative patriotic Americans.

No matter though, we'll round them all up -- not those burning the Mexican flag -- and off to the hoosegow they will go!!!

Still waiting on your definitions of a "conservative judge", "originalist judge", and "strict constructionist judge." May we have your answer please?

AAR

conservsative judge depends on how conservative. John Roberts is more moderate than Alito.

Conservatives such as Alito rule based on their religious values and ideals rather than law and then seek out legal precedents to justify their decision.

For example, if Row v Wade decision was to be challenged, Alito would rule in favor of overturning it without even looking into the merits of the case. Alito has alsoindicated that he will offer favoritism towards those who appointed him.

axis,

RE: "Conservatives such as Alito rule based on their religious values and ideals rather than law and then seek out legal precedents to justify their decision."

Pure unadulterated HOGWASH!

You know -- or should know -- that IS NOT the definition of a "conservative judge."

Hint... You know -- or should know -- that "conservative" as it applies to judges is not the same as "conservative" when used to describe ones political or religious views. Words have many different meaning. Conservative is one of those words.

Still waiting on your definitions of a "conservative judge", "originalist judge", and "strict constructionist judge." May we have your answer please?

Need a little help? Conservative judges adhere more to a doctrine of strict constitutional interpretation, while liberal judges "legislate from the bench."

AAR

Need a little help? Conservative judges adhere more to a doctrine of strict constitutional interpretation, while liberal judges "legislate from the bench."

-- "Hint... You know -- or should know -- that "conservative" as it applies to judges is not the same as "conservative" when used to describe ones political or religious views."

Really AAR??? Is this why when choosing Supreme Court replacements, the Republicans wanted a "strong conservative christian" to fill the role? I suppose it is just a coincidence that the "conservative judge" definition in your mind shares all the sa,e political and religious views?

Your theory is debunked sorry.

axis,

Not so fast there ye ole slippery one!

Looks like we are going to have to work on definitions so people understand what we are talking about on this and future threads.

Since you don't have anything worthwhile to offer, here are a few definitions I pulled off the Internet to get you started. I'll look for more and see if I can work up a definition I like and that fits what we are looking for in conservative judges and judicial restraint and what I will be discussing.

If you want to participate in future discussions, you can start learning what I mean, or keep making your meaningless statements on the sideline that do not relate to the issue and are not what we are discussing.

I'll just continue without you!!!

CONSERVATIVE JUDGE: "A conservative judge is someone who applies the law and doesn't make the law. He is like a umpire who simply applies existing rules and doesn't make new ones. Doing anything else would be legislating from the bench which a judge is not supposed to do. ...The purpose of the judicial branch of government is to apply the rules written in the constitution, the laws, and government regulations (in that order of precedence), not to create new rules to avoid injustice, etc."

ORIGINALIST JUDGE: "Originalism is a legal philosophy that says the Constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was drafted in the summer of 1787, making no allowances for societal changes. It also says the Constitution's meaning can only be changed by amendment, a difficult process that requires two-thirds approval by each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states. ...interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people."
STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST JUDGE: "Similar to an originalist, a strict constructionist is one who sticks to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of its drafting without reading too much into them. ...[judges] who look at the words of the Constitution for what they are ...[judges] who will not legislate from the bench."

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: "Legal concept that says a judge's role is not to make policy or create legal rights, but to interpret the law as written in the Constitution or passed by Congress or the states. ...Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited. ...[judges] do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: "Describes judges who create rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution or overturn laws based on their feeling that a statute is unfair or bad policy."

AAR