what is a contemporary civil rights issue?

Urca

Urca

Well-Known Member
Im writing a paper in Poli Sci about contemporary civil rights/liberties issues, but I cant choose one.
I was thinking gay rights, because I could use the constitution as heavy resource material, etc, but im just not sure.
Not doing abortion or immigration, both have been done to death.

Any ideas?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Another is gun rights. I've always found it odd that the ACLU doesn't stand behind one of the few rights codified in the Bill of Rights. I've encountered many people who have a strong, sincere, visceral dislike of guns ... who wouldn't mind their views made law, and never mind the founders' intent. cn
 
Urca

Urca

Well-Known Member
I find it odd too. Normally liberals interpret laws to fit our changing society, but they argue that the orginal 2nd amendment should be interpreted exactly as written, which basically is for forming militias and whatnot. idk, you cant really go into pages of detail about gun rights
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Urca said:
I find it odd too. Normally liberals interpret laws to fit our changing society, but they argue that the orginal 2nd amendment should be interpreted exactly as written, which basically is for forming militias and whatnot. idk, you cant really go into pages of detail about gun rights
Click to expand...
"Exactly as written" is part of the problem.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That is as passed by Congress.

However as ratified by the States and signed by Thos. Jefferson when he was Secretary of State, the more modern form was used, without the weird commas.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A "well-regulated" militia is not one that has many laws in place, but in the parlance of the 18th century it meant "able to hit at what it aimed".
To me it's clear that the well-regulated militia clause was NOT a condition, but a reason.
What has been controversial through over a century of Supreme Court scrutiny is whether "the people" are collective, as in states, militias, what have you ... or the individual citizens.

To me it's "duh" obvious that it refers to individuals, or else why even bother to write it out? However ... get enough lawyers into one place, and the laws of physics themselves begin to distort.

It's a lively and rich topic. You just have to do some real honest library research, not google newspapers. ;) cn
 
Dinosaurbud

Dinosaurbud

Member
Urca said:
I find it odd too. Normally liberals interpret laws to fit our changing society, but they argue that the orginal 2nd amendment should be interpreted exactly as written, which basically is for forming militias and whatnot. idk, you cant really go into pages of detail about gun rights
Click to expand...
Right.....blame JUST the liberals.

Dumb fuck.
 
Urca

Urca

Well-Known Member
lol yeah yeah yeah. i guess that what intrigued me about the gay rights was the clash between church and state, the power of the federal govt over the states, and how the states and the people retain the right to make laws not expressly stated in the constitution, which means individual states should have the power to decide on gay marriage, but then you throw in the supremacy clause and thats when it becomes dead locked
 
Urca

Urca

Well-Known Member
Dinosaurbud said:
Right.....blame JUST the liberals.

Dumb fuck.
Click to expand...
um, its two different schools of thought. Conservatives tend to go for strict interpretation of the Constitution, while Liberals tend to adapt interpretation to fit modern times, however the liberals tend to call for strict interpretation of the second amendment. neither is more right than each other.

no one is to blame, so who is the dumb fuck now?
 
Dinosaurbud

Dinosaurbud

Member
Urca said:
um, its two different schools of thought. Conservatives tend to go for strict interpretation of the Constitution, while Liberals tend to adapt interpretation to fit modern times, however the liberals tend to call for strict interpretation of the second amendment. neither is more right than each other.

no one is to blame, so who is the dumb fuck now?
Click to expand...
trololololololol I don't give a fuck about politics. It is ALL (including the 'god' Ron Paul) complete bullshit. Every single person in politics in the US is in it for the wrong reasons.
 
Urca

Urca

Well-Known Member
Politics is my life!! Lol im most likely going to major in Political Science, or History of some sort.
Definitely considering double majoring Political science and international relations, and brush on my language skills, I want to get hired by the govt
 
The Cryptkeeper

The Cryptkeeper

Well-Known Member
Urca said:
Politics is my life!! Lol im most likely going to major in Political Science, or History of some sort.
Definitely considering double majoring Political science and international relations, and brush on my language skills, I want to get hired by the govt
Click to expand...
Well if this is what you believe to the fact in these two schools you haven't done much with your 'life' have you.
Um, its two different schools of thought. Conservatives tend to go for strict interpretation of the Constitution, while Liberals tend to adapt interpretation to fit modern times
Click to expand...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
"lol yeah yeah yeah" ??
I went to some effort to show that it isn't hard to write pages and pages about a rather current topic.

It's not so easily divisible along liberal/otherwise lines.
Consider the misused term "assault weapon". An assault weapon is one that a modern soldier would carry ... and that effectively specifies a selective-fire capacity. No soldier worth his salt would carry any less.

So
1) Why are clearly disqualified guns (semi-auto only) described as "assault weapons"? It's an obvious pejorative, and it uncovers an illiberal agenda by anyone who uses the term to describe any gun that could be legally purchased in the USA in, say, 1980.
2) Even the full-auto fully-featured tactical weapons allowed soldiers and cops ... what is wrong with granting citizens access to these? Their misuse is and always has been unlawful. (Why do civil police get better goodies than citizens? Something inherently screwy there.)
Some thoughts that I hope you won't dismiss as readily. cn
 
snew

snew

Well-Known Member
What about the separation of church and state. Since the wording isn't used in our documents you may want to look at the phrasing of of the 1st amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How this phrase to keep the state out of church has been twisted to stated that Christians should have no place in government.
Its a different perspective.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Urca said:
um, its two different schools of thought. Conservatives tend to go for strict interpretation of the Constitution, while Liberals tend to adapt interpretation to fit modern times, however the liberals tend to call for strict interpretation of the second amendment. neither is more right than each other.

no one is to blame, so who is the dumb fuck now?
Click to expand...
i'm not going to throw back the 'dumb fuck' in your direction because that would be too harsh. but i do take issue with your sweeping generalization about conservatives versus liberals.

you might not have noticed how many conservatives have argued for changing the 14th amendment (damn anchor babies :cuss:) or getting rid of the 16th and 17th amendment, which was a part of the platform of MANY if not all of the GOP freshmen in the house from the 2010 elections.

conservatives and liberal don't mind seeing the document evolve a long as it fits their tilt.

as far as a contemporary civil rights issue, do one about unequal pay for women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top