Did they skip the 14th Amendment, Clause 2 which noted males vote (and by extension women don’t) because it was superseded by the 19th Amendment? (not that I see but maybe I missed it)
Of course there was.
There was no legally effective change, but there was a point. The point was to symbolically remind the public that Congress the legislative arm of a federal government with limited, ennumerated powers, and this is the document that lists those powers.
Not necessary, because that clause was stil operative. Men still vote.
The fact that women vote is not a feature of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Nineteenth Amendment did not modify the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the Thirteenth Amendment modified any prior mention of slavery.
Interesting. Then why did you say:
That sounds kind of gory.
Not quite. You were given the option to omit the words “so help me God” from the Oath of Enlistment. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, case law says you aren’t required to say it at all (WV State Board of Education v. Barnette.)
Has he ever specifically denied being a socialist – especially now that he’s tipped his hand by getting up in arms over a socialist pledge written by a socialist, obviously as part of his socialist agenda to socialize America into a socialist nation?
A U.S. senator from Indiana is the holder of a federal constitutional office, not the holder of an Indiana state office. All of his powers, privileges, and activities are federal powers, privileges, and activities, not state ones. Coats is a U.S. senator. Whatever expenditure of tax dollars that can be credited to him are all federal tax dollars.
The three-fifths clause is also still operative. The fact that one specific class of people included in that clause (slaves) no longer exists does not remove or invalidate the clause itself.
And yet it was revisionist-edited out.
(And I’m still trying to figure out what rationale they could have possibly had for editing out the provision for appointing senators to fill vacancies. Did that go away when I wasn’t looking?)
I believe that what The Tooth meant is that this is a stupid point that was a major waste of time and energy. I’m sure the guy waving a Rapture sign on the street corner has a point too, but that doesn’t mean we all need to listen to him.
It is not still operative - it was specifically changed by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:
Is there a law against altering the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you believe the government has the authority to force NBC to explain or justify a free speech choice?
They didn’t “alter” the pledge anyway. They just left part of it out. Is that a crime? Does that require a literal act of Congress? Is this something the government has any business, or Constitutional right to get involved with? I thought you righties hated big government telling private businesses what to do. Now you want the government monitoring the media for insufficient religiosity? Are we in Iran now? What the fuck. Fuck your pledge. I pledge allegiance to my cock of the United States of blow me. Are you going to get the government after me now?
Where did the government do that?
I think other people have the right to ask NBC why they did what they did - presumably many people did so immediately and this led to their quick apology that day.
Maybe some of them asked as well for a written explanation and for assurances that this won’t happen again - which is as far as the senator went. No threats of investigations, no grumbling about licenses or equal time. Pretty mild stuff.
Why should they have to make an apology? They did nothing wrong.
Then why did they apologize?
Because they caved in to pressure from idiots who think they did something wrong, clearly. Personally I find it disappointing.
I disagree. If they had made a decision to show none of the pledge ceremony, nobody probably would have noticed or cared. Since they decided to show it, they should have committed to showing the whole thing - especially since the parts they excised were the parts that people would have noticed and gotten angry about.
Whoever was weighing risk-aversion in their head and decided that this needed to be done was a fool - far fewer people would be offended by showing the whole pledge than would be offended by this editing job.
NBC made a mistake and was right to apologize.
True. But what business does a U.S. senator have asking a private organization to explain “its decision-making process in this matter…why these specific words were omitted, and what actions NBC intends to take to prevent such inappropriate edits from occurring in the future.”
Did you read the OP? A US Senator has somehow gotten it into his little pea brain that a media organization owes the government an explanation for a free speech choice.
TheGOVERNMENT is not entitled to demand jack shit.
The Senator is entitled to nothing. Neither is anyone else, for that matter. It’s called free speech. Suck it. Nobody has to explain to you why they decided not to chant to your sky fairy, and they sure as hell don’t have to explain it to the government. It’s bizarre that you righties think you’ve somehow been victimized. How exactly do you believe you were harmed?
Because they’re afraid of morons writing letters.