Every time I see some dumb female moron holding up a sign saying "I want my constitution back"

it makes me want to puke. I was not born in this country and maybe I have misunderstood the constitution, but I thought that it did not grant women to vote, and their property rights were not clearly defined. It was the subsequent amendments that gave them their rights.

So, if I am right and if they want their constitution back, tell them to live with the consequences.

as an amendment.

Mainly since "their" Constitution would omit those pesky amendments that allow women and minorities to vote.

:rofl:

God knows they're still allowed to look stupid in front of the world.

He was elected... :sarcasm: LOL

That was the way the white founding fathers intended, (I guess they think).

And he brung his damned welfare queen wife and those damned little pickaninnies with him. Gonna have to fumigate the place after we done hauled 'em out and lynched 'em."

Seriously. I guarantee there are a good many people who have said that exact thing about him. The bottom-feeding 15% don't consider blacks to be human.

Most people consider the constitutional amendments as being a part of the constitution.

The phrase, "I want my constitution back" was really popular during the George W. Bush presidency because so much of what he and his congress did seemed to be against the constitution. It includes the idea that took us to war without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war by the congress.

The phrase is used by right wing groups too especially involving tax issues or regulation of businesses. They believe the constitution is against such things. Additionally, gun rights people use the phrase.

Basically the phrase can be used for anything the government does that people perceive as being against the constitution.

I lost it the other night while drinking.

If anyone finds it, call me...

signs like, "I want my freedoms back"? Actually, amendments to the Constitution do grant rights to women that women fought for, not men. So I don't get your point that those amendments aren't part of the Constitution.

The word "constitution" does NOT refer to the original document adopted
by the states. It refers to the Entire document INCLUDING Amendments.
Constitution is not fixed and cast in concrete. It can be amended any time
if ratified by majority of states and elected officials as stipulated
in the constitution.

The real question is, how exactly has Pres. Obama violated the constitution!
Just declaring he has on a placard is totally meaningless. Just part of free speech
I suppose.

founding fathers wrote. That means no amendments. That means women can't vote. That would mean that african-americans are not 100% citizens of the US.

We either follow the constitution in its entirety or not
follow it at all. I prefer the former.

and the Amendments are the law of the land.

He is the one that shredded it.

I suspect they'd be content with merely a little more Jim Crow.

And yes, from your post..you don't understand the Constitution.
People holding signs like that are talking about all the laws such as the Patriot Acts that are unconstitutional as well as the signing statements etc that are unconstitutional..such as the spying on Americans or to kidnap people and hide them away without trials or torturing people.
We lost a whole lot of civil and constitutional rights under Bush..maybe they just want them back.

It sounds like to me that you just don't like women as I don't read you bitching about the men holding signs.

granted, they may not have worded it perfectly as they focused on voting rights and such, but that aside, the underlying issue is a bunch of women standing around glorifying a constitution which STILL doesn't give us equal rights.

When the ERA passes, it'll be a different story. For now, a bunch of women bemoaning the loss of any document which treats them as second class citizens makes about as much sense as gays being nostalgic for pre-1967 marriage laws.

That's nothing to do with "not liking women." It's about recognizing that women are celebrating a document that grants the government the right to discriminate against them simply because they are women.

And with the amendments..which are also the law and part of the Constituion..it doesn't do that any longer.
I am a fighter for equal rights for everyone and I want women to be treated as human beings and equals same as everyone else.
I also believe the Constitution is the law of the land that protected us all until we allowed these people to destroy it and use it for butt wipe.
Since when do the employees get to change the contract they are hired under anyways?

Historically, it's been the law of the land that's protected rich white males. It's been that far longer than a document that protected us "all." All other classes of people have had to fight/are still fighting for equal rights.

(Not sure of the relevance of employees being hired under contracts, is there a discussion here about employment law that I missed?)

I told a Repub (a total nutcase, Beck-lovin' rightwingnut) that I remembered the days when it was LEGAL to pay women less for the same job, simply because they are women. I told her that I remembered when girls' sports were legally and totally not funded in schools, simply because they were girls. I told her that I remembered when it the norm to believe that women should work only when necessary, and then to take jobs that would not take jobs away from men, who needed those jobs more than women. I told her the only reason she had the job she had now, and was paid decently, was because of efforts by the Dem. Party.

As usual, she said nothing. She is totally brainwashed and believes nothing that Beck doesn't tell her, and everything that he does tell her.

The rightwingnuts are truly brainwashed and hate-filled people. She hates taxes to help pay for those who are less fortunate...they have made their own beds, she thinks. Yet...she sought years ago to get ins. thru SCHIP, when she made less money, and was dismayed to find that SHE didn't qualify. I pointed out that there are some who would take the position that she shouldn't have had kids if she couldn't provide for them. (I didn't mention WHOSE position that would be. It is HERS and other Republicans' position, of course.) I then pointed out that that program has since been expanded to include more of the working poor, so she might qualify now, if she made the same paltry income now that she did then. (I didn't tell her WHO broadened the program; it was the Democrats, of course.)

where she belonged.

The reason she can leave her "wifely" duties and strut her stuff with protest signs is because Democratic women have made that okay. They paved the way for her.

Political conservatives opposed giving women the right to vote. It was liberal progressives who fought for this right for them.

In 50 years you will see openly transgendered grown men who are the children of mexican immigrants complaining that 'the liberals are destroying America'. Good times.

Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled.

Being from the UK you might tell dumb morons of whichever gender to ask for their MAGNA FUCKING CARTA back. :hi:

morons like that are what you get.

Obama has not done anything but adhere to the Constitution, unlike ShrubCo. who called it "just a god damn piece of paper."

might be just me and the some of the mysoginist assholes I grew up with but they used that word with a snarl and hate like a female was just this side of vermin.

just saying. female species, and all that shit, like we aren't human, like we are aliens.

I don't get it with some of this 'hot topics' here -- is it it Politically Incorrect to support protecting our Constitution? It is being shredded here from all directions, but does that mean we should be happy with letting it go, is it 'outdated' or something?

now that they want "their" country and "their" Constitution back now that Obama is President are the same ones that had no problem at all when the Bush Administration consistently violated the Constitution and civil rights. They've now suddenly become ardent "constitutionalists" when there is a Dem black President and they believe "their" country has been taken away from them. Hint: they're right wingers.

You're also the same poster who doesn't "know" the truth of Obama's birthplace.

It seems that the intention of you post is being lost because some of the posters here don't understand the multivalence of "constitution": one being a singular document, one being foundational law, one being the body of practices and interpretations surrounding that foundational, and one referring to the contractual relationship of government and people. A British audience might appreciate this better.