Do you realize that some of our elected officials actually don't seem to support our Constitution?

[Anonymous]

Like this, for instance - apparently forgetting that the original Founders were born in other countries:

“No one born in another country should be serving in our government,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S. C.) wrote on X. “Judges included.”

[purplepoppy]

Why shouldn't they? If foreigners can work in your hospitals and schools, run your businesses, do the work you can't do or are unwilling, then why shouldn't they work in your government?

[Asker]

Because Republicans are terrified that foreigners will see through their schemes and won't vote for their shitty policies.

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007 well, considering that they came from England, France, and Germany, and those are foreign countries, that would make them foreigners.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Nearly all of them grew up in the colonies. What are you taking about?

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007 nearly all is not the same as all. In any event, it doesn't matter. This is really about Republicans being afraid that people won't vote for them, and they should be afraid, considering the sort of racist policies Republicans have made.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Once again... They were not foreigners from overseas with not cultural connection. They were part of multigeneratonal families of settlers. Remember, before the US was a nation it also had over 150 years of being handful of different colonies. What makes you think they all came from France, Germany, and England, like you claim?

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007 no, they didn't all come from those countries, and that is not the point.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

It's your question, do yes, it's the point.

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007 you know, stop arguing with me about this. Yes, it's my question, and yes, you have a point. Are you satisfied now?

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Now to your other misguided perspective. Would you find it acceptable for a white Christian to take control of a black Muslim area and try to institute his personal beliefs into their system? Would it be prejudiced for those black Muslims to say no?

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007 that presupposes that people who are white or black differentially institute their personal beliefs into cultural or political systems. There's no evidence to support that at all. That is just your unfounded belief.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

You recognize the double standard you hold. The expectation you likely believe is that all cultures (except western) should be protected from external forces. Most nations do this. Japan has strict immigration laws making it a homogenous population. Is that prejudice? Should Japan allow millions of foreigners into their system with differing ethics and culture, especially onto positions of power and infuence?

[FrodoSkywalker007]

So, you believe that ethics, cultures, and systems are all the same around the world? A White Atheist from Canada has the same values as a Black African from Somalia? They wouldn't infringe upon each other?

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007 I'm in medicine. I work with people from a lot of different cultures, and our work is complicated and stressful. They don't impose their ethics or belief systems on me, and I don't impose mine on them. Your belief that people from other ethical systems or cultures are somehow going to behave so differently betrays a lack of experience on your part.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Because 250,000 rapes British women by Pakistani grooming gangs is totally acceptable, due to a culture that has a different perspective of female rights. Because we should accept the attempted institution of sharia law in Muslim majority cities in the US? Or allow Somalia immigrants to defraud Americans and show preference for their home country while ignoring our customs and laws. Of course not all of them are bad. None argue this. The issue is those who ignore customs and laws, and are protected in doing so. The issue is a class of cultures that do not work together. You have illusions if you believe many of these cultures will "westernize" when they become the dominate force. It never works that way. History proves this over and over.

[Asker]

@FrodoSkywalker007, yes, of course, you would focus on anything that's bad in a different culture while ignoring all the bad things in American culture. Also, there's been no attempt at institution of Sharia law in the U. S. That I am aware of.

[exitseven]

Because foreigners do not love America and do not have its best interest in mind. All they want to do is destroy the country and turn it into a third world hell hole

[Asker]

@exitseven you have no way of knowing what the foreigners want or don't want. However, if they come to America voluntarily, that must mean that they like something about it. They don't come here to destroy things. More crimes are committed by people who are citizens than by people who are immigrants. You are once again buying the lie that Trump is telling you.

[exitseven]

If it walks like a duck...

[Anonymous]

Bye Ted Cruz

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The neat thing about the Constitution is that it included the Amendment process, because the Founders admitted that it was an imperfect legal document.

The bad thing about the Constitution is that the founders KNEW it was a bad legal document to begin with.

I disagree with half the laws in the USA federal constitution, and I disagree with at least half of the Bill of Rights and the amendments since then.

For example, the First Amendment is a self-contradiction. You can't have "Freedom of Religion" for everyone, because most religions are mutually exclusive to one another. You cannot have "freedom of press" for everyone. I'm not allowed to practice my religion freely because if I correctly oppose LGBTQs I get accused of "Hate speech" and condemned by everyone, even though the Constitution says my right to freedom of speech and freedom of Press "shall not be abridged". It's an entire self-contradiction.

Example 2:

The Second Amendment is a bit dumb. Do we really want everyone who WANTS to purchase a gun to own a machine gun? The founders didn't even know these weapons were physically possible at the time the Constitution was written. The most advanced gun in the world at that time was a muzzle loader which fired a mini-ball and which too a bare minimum of 20 seconds for a well'trained soldier to reload and aim, which didn't even have rifled barrels and bullets yet. Even a six-shooter revolver was invented until half-way through the American Civil War.

Example 3:

The Fifth Amendment is dumb. It basically gives you a "right" to commit a crime as long as you don't get caught.

[Asker]

The First Amendment doesn't exempt you from the social consequences of your hate speech. You may not like gay people, and you are certainly free to say that you don't like gay people, but when you do that, you don't expect others to love you for it. On the other hand, your hate speech is not illegal. Cannot be prosecuted for it, but you can be shunned for it, and I guess you probably are. Don't expect the law to protect your venomous commentary toward people that you don't agree with regarding their sexual orientation.

In case you've not checked, people actually can't purchase machine guns, except under very special circumstances with very special permits. As far as I know, nobody owns a legal machine gun that they keep in their bedroom.

This amendment prevents double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and provides for due process. Not knowing for sure, I suspect that you object to providing due process to people whom you don't agree with or don't like. Too bad you live in a democracy. There are other places you could live where the things that you want might be provided. There is no right to commit a crime if you don't get caught.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I've actually seen television shows where private gunsmiths made a 50 caliber machine gun and fired it repeatedly in their back yard.

[Asker]

Yeah, I'm sure the ATF has seen those television shows too and probably paid those folks a visit. I certainly hope so. Bump stocks are bad enough.

[strateguy632]

how is that a proof? that is like saying iran did not use an atom bomb! it is because they don't have it. at the time of new country there was not a choice. they were born in 'British colony' but since then we have options. people born outside and dual citizens have a bias and favor another country. they can't vote for good of u. s. nor do america first policy. imagine a german in our government using authority to make a good deal for germany!

[Asker]

I don't know. It's because they don't have it. It might be because they are smart enough not to do something like that. I don't know whether people were born in another country or came here because they intended to do harm, or intended to do good, or just wanted to live their lives. You and others are really concerned that they may not vote for the policies you want to vote for. They may not vote for the party that you favor. Too bad that's called a democracy.

[lightbulb27]

Just have a reciprocal agreement with the country. if somone is elected in our country, a US citizen is elected to govt in their country.

be cool to have US citizens influencing chinese communist party., or French or Italian.

one world order or divided world, those are the directions.

[exitseven]

The original founders were born in the USA. Most were born in Massachusetts or Virginia.

[Asker]

Has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

[exitseven]

Read the question. It says the original founders were born in foreign countries. That is not true and the founders wanted native born Americans to lead the nation and recognized the danger of having foreigners in positions of power

[Asker]

I know what the fuck it says. I can read better than you can. You don't have to remind me about it. You just assumed that Founders wanted Native-born Americans to lead the nation and recognize the danger of having foreigners in a position of power. Tell me where it actually says that. Is that just more bullshit you've made up?

[slatyb]

Support it? They have never read it.

[Asker]

Actually, I don't think most of them can read. If they can pronounce the words, they certainly do not comprehend them.