Which is your favorite Amendment?

[Lancecastor]

I like the Fourth.

http://pennacrimlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/a-warrant-147055017_c3d2380f72.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Are we talking about the Homes Association?

 

[Lancecastor]

Dick Daily wants the Third repealed... He loves having soldier sleepovers.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Dick is dumber than the homes association president.

 

[Lancecastor]

Are we talking about the Homes Association?

Sure, let's talk!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I hate them.

I was always at war with ours.

It was dominated by the bored hausfraus of the golf club.

I hate golf.

 

[Lancecastor]

I hate them.

I was always at war with ours.

It was dominated by the bored hausfraus of the golf club.

I hate golf.

So you're more a second amendment guy.

 

[Rachel_X]

I like the 16th.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The 14th.

The concept of united states didn't make much sense if the Constitution applied to the federal government only. Even at that we have had to "incorporate" each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights relative to state power through individual judicial opinions.

That never made sense to me. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th should have applied to all of the Bill of Rights immediately.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The 24th amendment.

It deprives the right wing of their most effective "block the vote" weapon: the poll tax.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I like the Fourth.

http://pennacrimlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/a-warrant-147055017_c3d2380f72.jpg

HUGE fan of the 4th

14th is a big one too, equal protection clause is just big boobies level of awesome.

But my personal favorite is the 21st'.....because beer is good.

 

[pensivepoet]

My favorite amen mint is the Baptists.
I tried the catholics but it's just stale bread.

 

[RobDownSouth]

But my personal favorite is the 21st'.....because beer is good.

God is Great, Beer is Good and Queerbait is Hashtag

 

[Darbhinder]

The "all men are created equal, except for pakis" part

 

[Pookie]

I'm gonna be greedy and say the 5th and 14th. That whole due process thingie related to depriving people of life is such an inconvenience, but otherwise I'm good with it.

 

[Christobal]

Folks have spoken on Civil rights so I will not repeat that. Those aside I like the 21st. The repeal of prohibition. It was landmark in the sense that the government wasn't going to criminalize a behavior that nearly everyone was doing and they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping it. That is a big admission.

 

[MrRandyWatson]

The 22nd. Extend it to the fuckwads in Congress.

 

[doctor_insanus]

http://ima.ulximg.com/public/userfiles/2016/02/aa25c0ecac64e91ce23f4a346c5a9b40.gif

 

[Christobal]

The 22nd. Extend it to the fuckwads in Congress.

This is one that has always vexed me. No one should hold political office for too long yet if I'm happy with the job they are doing shouldn't I be able keep them there? That said if I were asked to vote on it an elected official should hold that job for no more than twelve years. It gives them time to learn their job but kicks them out before they can create a lifetime fiefdom.

 

[pointless]

http://ima.ulximg.com/public/userfiles/2016/02/aa25c0ecac64e91ce23f4a346c5a9b40.gif

it still weirds me out to realize that that show has been dead for a fucking decade.

 

[JayPierce95]

The 4th

The 4th Amendment is equally as important as the 1st and justice is the cornerstone of democracy. People need to start caring as much about the 4th as the 1st or else we have no privacy (I'm sure most people on here can appreciate that haha).

 

[yossi]

I'm pretty fond of #19.

 

[Christobal]

The 4th Amendment is equally as important as the 1st and justice is the cornerstone of democracy. People need to start caring as much about the 4th as the 1st or else we have no privacy (I'm sure most people on here can appreciate that haha).

This is the fourth amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It never uses the word privacy. Sad but true.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This is the fourth amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It never uses the word privacy. Sad but true.

Why would the people have a RIGHT to be secure if the RIGHT of privacy did not exist? There is no practical difference.

What people routinely forget about the Fourth Amendment is how tenuous that right of privacy IS based on the language in the second half of the amendment. A REASONABLE SEARCH which VIOLATES the not-so-sacred right of privacy is merely one based on "probable" cause "supported" by someone's "oath or affirmation."

"Yeah, he probably did it, so let's get a warrant and ransack his home, business records, etc." And then, after you go to trial and are acquitted, the government doesn't owe you a damn thing. Your freedom is enough.

Mind you, I'm not complaining about that. I believe the government's interest and MY interest in effective law enforcement justifies that standard for a Fourth Amendment search. But it is an immutable fact that the Fourth Amendment implies a right of privacy, and that the language of that same amendment renders the right of privacy to be, literally, "paper thin," if you catch my meaning.

 

[Pookie]

Why would the people have a RIGHT to be secure if the RIGHT of privacy did not exist? There is no practical difference.

What people routinely forget about the Fourth Amendment is how tenuous that right of privacy IS based on the language in the second half of the amendment. A REASONABLE SEARCH which VIOLATES the not-so-sacred right of privacy is merely one based on "probable" cause "supported" by someone's "oath or affirmation."

"Yeah, he probably did it, so let's get a warrant and ransack his home, business records, etc." And then, after you go to trial and are acquitted, the government doesn't owe you a damn thing. Your freedom is enough.

Mind you, I'm not complaining about that. I believe the government's interest and MY interest in effective law enforcement justifies that standard for a Fourth Amendment search. But it is an immutable fact that the Fourth Amendment implies a right of privacy, and that the language of that same amendment renders the right of privacy to be, literally, "paper thin," if you catch my meaning.

Ditto.