I kinda understand that Benjamin Franklin in a god and he wrote something, and the words of the messiah’s is infallible or something. I get that’s it is written somewhere, that’s not what I’m asking.
So I don’t mean that. I mean doesn’t america always bang on about people being able to govern themselves rather than been forced into another government they don’t want to be a part of. Like if 60% or hell even 100% of texans wanted to be their own country. Doesn’t stopping that go against the fundamental defining block of America.
I kinda understand that Benjamin Franklin in a god and he wrote something the words of the messiah’s work is infallible or something. I get that’s it is written somewhere, that’s not what I’m asking.
What in the world are you talking about about here?
9 times out of 10 when you talk to an American about something they say “you can’t do that because the constitution says X, Y, Z”. It always reminds me of Muslims, Jews or Christians talking about their holy books.
Most other nationalities make arguments based on some logic, or reason. If there is a law that stops them they talk about changing it, that isn’t an issue. But for Americans the constitution is something that is almost holy. They make arguments based on the fact that the constitution says something not because of any reasoning behind it.
But I’m not American so the argument more often than not falls flat. It’s kinda relevant now but that’s not what I want to know.
I’ll actually rephrase the sentence, in the orginal post as it’s a bit crap.
In fairness they do that because the Constitution, and legal precedent surrounding it, is the cornerstone of all federal law, supersedes all state and local laws, and is pretty close to impossible to change in the current political climate. It’s pretty hard to change in more “normal” times!
You ask as Christian why they don’t kill and they will says “God said thou shall not kill”. When really the underlying argument is that it is morally wrong to do so … obviously this point can be fleshed out a lot but for non Christians is not about the book
You talk about how freedom of speech is an ideal that the world and we should strive for more of it and Americans will say “The first amendment says the govement can’t censor you. Say nothing about corporations” then all the other Americans are like “haha yea got him” and “perfect explaination. Omg people are so stupid”.
When in fact I don’t actually care what the constitution says I’m talking more philosophy than “religion” just because your foreign law says one thing doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion that differs from it and honestly that isn’t a reason for you to have that opinion either.
[Also in researching this comment I realised that freedom of speech is the first ammendment not in the orginal text. So I look a bit stupid, but whatever I can’t be expected to know the laws of every foreign country. The point still stands it seems like Americans treat the constitution as holy]
For sure, plenty see it as a static document. They’re known as “originalists” or “strict constructionists.” Many take that a step or two too far into quasi -religion.
FWIW, nobody says the Constitution applies anywhere outside the US. You bring up murder as an example and say the underlying reason is that it’s immoral to kill. So why do we have laws against killing people? I mean we all know it’s immoral to kill, so why do we need the laws? Because not everything that is immoral is illegal. Not everything that’s moral is legal, either. You’re treating two different things as if they were one and the same. Plenty of people will tell you that two dudes getting married is “immoral,” and even cite Bible passages. I feel like you and I would probably disagree with them. This is where law can step in and establish the boundary individuals have to respect regardless of their moral views. Morals are for individuals, laws are for societies because we don’t all always agree on what’s “right.”
I don’t speak of free speech as this all healing thing, and anyone who does is naive, at best. In fact there are certainly plenty of times where free speech has no place. I don’t have free speech at work, for example, and I understand why.
The point of the free speech thing is that Americans will say any view you have against the constitution is wrong because the constitution says something else. Americans online and in person absolutely act like the constitution controls the Internet.
The moment Texas seriously considers leaving, every business would immediately pull up and leave. There are huge companies in Texas that would pull out to avoid the drama and fascism awaiting a “free” Texas.
That’s uncomparable. You are saying Texans are unable to choose what they do in life. That sounds like prison. So if your child becomes an adult grows up and wants a place of his own, bearing in mind for this analogy to work there must only be one house as you can’t just make more land. You still own where he lives and what he does? He doesn’t have equal control as you, sounds like he’s born into slavery.
your argument is totally neutered by the fact that until the kid meets specific legal requirements, they are absolutely required to stay where the parent dictates.
the law doesn’t allow texas to just up and leave the union either. they’d have to go through a lot of bureaucratic processes before that would be a viable option.
did you really think this was a solid “gotcha”? lol
Legal experts in the US consider the idea of a state seceding from the USA to be a closed question. There is no legal route to secession. The state of Texas would have to go to war with the US to enforce them seceding. It would fail, and abbot would be tried for treason and be sentanced to death.
I know that may sound overblown but it’s pretty open and shut, legally speaking
I mean doesn’t america always bang on about people being able to govern themselves rather than been forced into another government they don’t want to be a part of.
Because any country supports only stuff that benefits them. And the states is no different. Do you really think USA cares about democracy and sovereignity in the middle east?
They only protect their own interests and Texas secession is against these interests: If Texas would get it’s sovereignity, what’s stopping other 50 states from doing the same?
So why can’t Texas form its own country?
I kinda understand that Benjamin Franklin in a god and he wrote something, and the words of the messiah’s is infallible or something. I get that’s it is written somewhere, that’s not what I’m asking.
So I don’t mean that. I mean doesn’t america always bang on about people being able to govern themselves rather than been forced into another government they don’t want to be a part of. Like if 60% or hell even 100% of texans wanted to be their own country. Doesn’t stopping that go against the fundamental defining block of America.
Couldn’t that just get voted on and passed?
What in the world are you talking about about here?
9 times out of 10 when you talk to an American about something they say “you can’t do that because the constitution says X, Y, Z”. It always reminds me of Muslims, Jews or Christians talking about their holy books.
Most other nationalities make arguments based on some logic, or reason. If there is a law that stops them they talk about changing it, that isn’t an issue. But for Americans the constitution is something that is almost holy. They make arguments based on the fact that the constitution says something not because of any reasoning behind it.
But I’m not American so the argument more often than not falls flat. It’s kinda relevant now but that’s not what I want to know.
I’ll actually rephrase the sentence, in the orginal post as it’s a bit crap.
In fairness they do that because the Constitution, and legal precedent surrounding it, is the cornerstone of all federal law, supersedes all state and local laws, and is pretty close to impossible to change in the current political climate. It’s pretty hard to change in more “normal” times!
It’s more than that.
You ask as Christian why they don’t kill and they will says “God said thou shall not kill”. When really the underlying argument is that it is morally wrong to do so … obviously this point can be fleshed out a lot but for non Christians is not about the book
You talk about how freedom of speech is an ideal that the world and we should strive for more of it and Americans will say “The first amendment says the govement can’t censor you. Say nothing about corporations” then all the other Americans are like “haha yea got him” and “perfect explaination. Omg people are so stupid”.
When in fact I don’t actually care what the constitution says I’m talking more philosophy than “religion” just because your foreign law says one thing doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion that differs from it and honestly that isn’t a reason for you to have that opinion either.
[Also in researching this comment I realised that freedom of speech is the first ammendment not in the orginal text. So I look a bit stupid, but whatever I can’t be expected to know the laws of every foreign country. The point still stands it seems like Americans treat the constitution as holy]
For sure, plenty see it as a static document. They’re known as “originalists” or “strict constructionists.” Many take that a step or two too far into quasi -religion.
FWIW, nobody says the Constitution applies anywhere outside the US. You bring up murder as an example and say the underlying reason is that it’s immoral to kill. So why do we have laws against killing people? I mean we all know it’s immoral to kill, so why do we need the laws? Because not everything that is immoral is illegal. Not everything that’s moral is legal, either. You’re treating two different things as if they were one and the same. Plenty of people will tell you that two dudes getting married is “immoral,” and even cite Bible passages. I feel like you and I would probably disagree with them. This is where law can step in and establish the boundary individuals have to respect regardless of their moral views. Morals are for individuals, laws are for societies because we don’t all always agree on what’s “right.”
I don’t speak of free speech as this all healing thing, and anyone who does is naive, at best. In fact there are certainly plenty of times where free speech has no place. I don’t have free speech at work, for example, and I understand why.
The point of the free speech thing is that Americans will say any view you have against the constitution is wrong because the constitution says something else. Americans online and in person absolutely act like the constitution controls the Internet.
The moment Texas seriously considers leaving, every business would immediately pull up and leave. There are huge companies in Texas that would pull out to avoid the drama and fascism awaiting a “free” Texas.
Texas Instruments would just become New Mexico Instruments, not a big change. :)
Well that’s a different issue.
I’m not sure it would be as drastic as that because there is lots of oil and with things like Brexit not everyone left.
But just the concept of leaving seems like that is what America is about. The Americans even put self-determination into the UN.
Are you under the strange impression that Benjamin Franklin wrote the U.S. Constitution?
Same reason my child can’t declare their bedroom as their own legally separate house
That’s uncomparable. You are saying Texans are unable to choose what they do in life. That sounds like prison. So if your child becomes an adult grows up and wants a place of his own, bearing in mind for this analogy to work there must only be one house as you can’t just make more land. You still own where he lives and what he does? He doesn’t have equal control as you, sounds like he’s born into slavery.
your argument is totally neutered by the fact that until the kid meets specific legal requirements, they are absolutely required to stay where the parent dictates.
the law doesn’t allow texas to just up and leave the union either. they’d have to go through a lot of bureaucratic processes before that would be a viable option.
did you really think this was a solid “gotcha”? lol
Texans absolutely have more rights than a child being controlled by a parent.
A texan would have equal right over anything done in the country where a child would not.
Legal experts in the US consider the idea of a state seceding from the USA to be a closed question. There is no legal route to secession. The state of Texas would have to go to war with the US to enforce them seceding. It would fail, and abbot would be tried for treason and be sentanced to death.
I know that may sound overblown but it’s pretty open and shut, legally speaking
Because Texas, like every other part of America, doesn’t belong to just the people that live there, it belongs to all Americans.
While everyone has the right to leave America if they don’t like it, they don’t get take part of America with them when they go.
Your forgetting it’s a country founded on hypocrisy.
Because any country supports only stuff that benefits them. And the states is no different. Do you really think USA cares about democracy and sovereignity in the middle east?
They only protect their own interests and Texas secession is against these interests: If Texas would get it’s sovereignity, what’s stopping other 50 states from doing the same?
I think this is it.
I agree with you. But don’t Americans feel like they should go for it? That’s what confuses me