It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yet, recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that no one has a legal claim to guaranteed police protection . . .
I was thinking if I started a government - what would be the #1 basic need. My thought was Order. Of course - I was thinking Order to protect the government - - not the people.
Originally posted by ararisq
For what exactly? Stating the truth - the 14th protects all people from the state/government - it doesn't say anything about personal/employer discrimination based on anything (gender, height, sexual orientation). His point is valid - there is no protection from the 14th for any of that. Would you make it an offense to tell the truth?
Originally posted by ararisq
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yet, recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that no one has a legal claim to guaranteed police protection . . .
I was thinking if I started a government - what would be the #1 basic need. My thought was Order. Of course - I was thinking Order to protect the government - - not the people.
Isn't that what we have? A government for the government, by the people, to serve the government? I'm not protected anywhere but its illegal to have a firearm in any building declared a 'government' facility which is staffed and protected by tax funded police.
Originally posted by Annee
I'm not sure what kind of government we have currently. It seems more Corporate Fascist to me - - then anything else.
Originally posted by ararisq
It isn't fascist or a banking oligarchy by structure but it might be a banking oligarchy in practice. You have an Obama administration that has staffed and continues to staff the highest levels of his administration with executives from Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. Looking back - I don't know where he formed these relationships as a lawyer and community organizer in Chicago and most of these guys are hold overs from the Bush administration. It seems to me that Bush/Obama are polarizing lightning-rod figure heads and a couple of banks are running this country. Its not as much corporate as it is banker if there is a difference - they turned the intent behind corporations on its head in order to control the people. I just don't like the idea that we'd be better off without independent corporations and businesses and better off with a state run economy - then its 100% under their control. I would imagine its at least somewhat challenging right now - we are after all still able to communicate these thoughts.
Now that is surprising.
Here you go, folks. The Supreme Court says so. Yet we still have people who say we do not need feminists, or people fighting for only women's rights.
Here we have Scalia saying women are not protected under our constitution. On this board we have posters disguising misogyny under the bleat,
Women already have equal rights, they don't need special rights.
that reminds me of all the years of the 'equality movement' through the 60s-70s and 80s ... how is it that resulting from the 'equality movement' we still have any minority groups? that question has boggled my brain for many a year.
Hell, the Federal Government gives special consideration for contracts if you are 'minority' and 'female'. How is that not special Rights or special favors?
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR FEMALES link
WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Here you go, folks. The Supreme Court says so. Yet we still have people who say we do not need feminists, or people fighting for only women's rights.
Oh we don't?
Yes, now more than ever, us Female Fighters need to stay vigilant, and ever protective of our rights.
Here we have Scalia saying women are not protected under our constitution. On this board we have posters disguising misogyny under the bleat,
Women already have equal rights, they don't need special rights.
There blows that excuse out the water.
I just don't know what to do about this situation, but maybe some discussion on the topic will start some ideas flowing.