John McCain Acceptance Speech Rebuttal
Loading...
Loading...
2:29
Voters React to Sarah Palin's Acceptance Speech, Her Treatment in the Media and Impact on John McCainby surveynation980 views- 8:02
Opinion on John McCain's Acceptance Speech at the RNCby ARCERIsBMWiDs277 views
- 0:29
Part 1 Sarah Palin VP John McCain Acceptance Speech Announcementby uzcup28742,784 views
- 2:46
Bush speechwriter slams McCain speechby JoeInDC9,781 views
- 2:19
RNC John Mccain Acceptance Speech: Sarah Palinby BigBagNews356 views
- 8:57
John McCain Acceptance Speech at RNCby laptoponsale3,244 views
- 1:30
Classic John McCain Debate moment with Barack Obama on healthcareby lj4adotcomdan662 views
- 9:08
McCain Acceptance Speechby ReaganClub1,479 views
- 4:41
mccains acceptance speechby xWrOcKxOnxNF158 views
- 4:11
Analysis of John McCain's Acceptance Speechby smcaliendo251 views
- 1:32
Who is redistributing the wealth again?by lj4adotcomdan278 views
- 1:22
Carl Bernstein on John McCain's speechby jstbems360 views
- 2:06
OBAMA makes McCain look stupidby rockstone1111169,430 views
- 6:18
Rebuttal speechby habeas939887 views
- 2:53
Sarah Palin is a neglectful motherby TheResistanceChannel1,398 views
- 0:15
Re: (Part 2) • Sarah Palin (John McCain) VP Acceptance Speechby politicalpug3,475 views
- 7:52
COMM 203 Speech 4by fuzzywuzzy256444 views
- 3:42
rebuttal speechby manilynmar2,543 views
- 2:31
David B Rush's Rebuttal to Jen Lor's speechby supasooz916 views
- 0:38
Toobin: McCain's speech "shockingly bad"by JoeInDC10,935 views
So basically, people should have the right to do as they please UNLESS the government makes a law that prohibits those actions. That law must stand the scrutiny of the Constitution in order to be valid. The burden of proof should be on the government when it asserts a power, not on the people.
Furthermore, the amendment process is needed when the judiciary gets it wrong (you know, like with Dredd Scott) and does not correct itself (like it did with Plessy and Brown V Board of Education).
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
The existence of the 9th amendment in the bill of rights clearly contradicts that line of reasoning.
The Constitution protects all rights, regardless of their status of being enumerated or not.
Conservatives argue that if this is so then Judges could manufacture rights, but I disagree. The idea of the Constitution is that government has to prove it has the authority to act when its acts are challenged.
(to be continued)
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
If the amendment process were not needed to recognize rights then there would have been no reason for the Bill of Rights, which are -- after all -- amendments.
Baker227 3 years ago
Original intent is merely a means of interpreting ambiguous phrases of the Constitution. To my understanding, there is nothing ambiguous about "all persons born or naturalized in the US" receiving equal protection of the laws. Whether they are homosexual or not has no bearing on their citizenship status, and thus the intent of the amendment's authors need not be consulted.
Baker227 3 years ago
I wouldn't if the people complaining about activist judges thinks that the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia should've just "deferred" to the people? Most people didn't want interracial marriage to be legal back then.
sicktoaster 3 years ago
Read the 14th amendment. Equal protection of the laws.
Back then I'm sure most of the people who wrote the 14th amendment would not agree that that applied to homosexuals, but back then most people thought there were actually logical reasons to treat homosexuals differently. Those reasons have been debunked so since there's no rational state interest in different treatment treating them differently violates the equal protection clause.
sicktoaster 3 years ago
I am sorry but you are incorrect. The amendment process is purposefully hard for a reason. And that reason is not so that it is harder to recognize rights. It is purposefully hard to make sure that government cannot grant itself more power than what they intended it to have.
When it comes to protecting individual rights, government has to make its case as to why it has a rational basis to do so. Otherwise, the courts must have the authority to step in and say "no".
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
That is what the amendment process is for. If future generations believe that the founders were wrong, the people can change the Constitution's meaning via amendment. To leave such fundamental change in the document's meaning up to 5 individuals is frightening and unnecessary. If the founders wanted us make sure of anything, it was that this nation belonged to the people. All of the people. Not five.
Baker227 3 years ago
The Founders wanted to enshrine general principles and general protections into our Constitution. If they wanted to make sure it would always be implemented according to their understanding of those principles they would've been more specific but they weren't. They left open the possibility that their understanding of some of these principles could be wrong.
sicktoaster 3 years ago
Final Point(s): States were indeed allowed such transgressions well into the mid-20th century.
My ultimate fear, in the end, is that if we allow 9 men and women to interpret freely or determine the extent of our rights without any limitations, what is stopping some future collection of nine from reversing it all. I will never trade short-term convenience (i.e avoiding amendment process through broad interpretation) for the long-term preservation of the liberty of future generations.
Baker227 3 years ago