sort by best latest
S Leretseh says
William Grant says
Alberic O says
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Yes. I know he signed up for it. But, he wasn't complaining or anything like that. It's just that when he said it, I just started wondering about it.
The phrase "civil rights" is one of the most misused phrases I can think of. The first time I can find in history where the phrase "civil rights" was used was in 1866 with the passage of the first Civil Rights Act. Likely sprung from "Civil" War
The Constitution was intended as a living document, not gospel handed down from on high. The Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights. The BofR is a continuation of our rights as citizens, for better or worse. THAT is the Law of the Land.
The Bill of Rights LIMITS what the Federal Government can do. See amendment #10. The only "living" part is the ability to amend it.
Gusser: Technically, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that cannot be changed. There is a whole process devoted to it. That's how the "Defense of Marriage" act got there, the first amendment to limit the rights of citizens.
The Defense of Marriage act is NOT in the Constitution and the First amendment protects citizens rights, not limit them. The Government is what is limited by the Constitution.
Gusser: I didn't say the DoMA was in the Constitution, except in the sense that it is a legal amendment, and it is not the "1st Amendment" I said it was the first amendment to remove rights. It doesn't "protect" anything.
DoMA is NOT an amendment either. Education is your friend.
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments