Skip Nav
Women
43 Bangin' (and Beautiful) Tattoos
Valentine's Day
30 Valentine's Day Cards That Put the Funny in Sexy
Relationships
Are You and Your Boyfriend Best Friends? Here's How You Really Know

McCain, Obama plan joint stop at Ground Zero

Click to Read

McCain, Obama plan joint stop at Ground Zero Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama said Saturday they will put aside partisan politics for a joint appearance at Ground Zero to mark the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The nominees said they will appear together at the World Trade Center site on Thursday "to honor the memory of each and every American who died" in the 2001 attacks. The campaigns already had agreed to suspend television advertising critical of each other on Sept. 11. The McCain campaign has said it will air no ads that day.

0 Comments
Around The Web
You Need This 3-Ingredient Vegan Coconut Bacon in Your Life
If Dry Winter Skin Is Ruining Your Life, Eat These Foods!
Paleo Followers Need This Grocery List
How Many Chicken Wings Will Americans Eat in Total This Super Bowl Sunday?

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
outofhere outofhere 7 years
I'm glad that both candidates can put everything aside and be united in honouring September 11th.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
He started it.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
I think you boys just have different ideas of what "living document" means. Traditionally, it means you can change what the ideas in the Constitution mean as time goes on. That is certainly not okay. The ideas stay the same, it's just the things you apply them to that change.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
Okay, that was funny.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
Checkmate.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
Checkmate.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
blah blah blah.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
Apparently, Rac, you don't believe in a "living constitution." Maybe you should look into the term.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
That's all I was trying to say, Mich. When we do actually make amendments (except prohibition), we usually get it right.
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 7 years
:yoda: I have nothing to add. RAC is very wise.
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 7 years
:yoda:I have nothing to add. RAC is very wise.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Rac, haha, that was a good one :). I think we are on the same page. I don't have a problem with amendments for the most part, I just don't like when people blatantly ignore the Constitution.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I'm against it. They've done way to much to mess up our society. I wish they would've just stayed in the kitchen, and left the governing to the men. ;) (JK)
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I'm against it. They've done way to much to mess up our society. I wish they would've just stayed in the kitchen, and left the governing to the men.;)(JK)
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
Well ... giving women the right to vote I thought was a pretty good idea, don't you? Or is that too hip-hop, organic?
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Under what context do you think it should be changed? And under what context do you think I believe it should be changed? I don't think this discussion is pointless or cyclical because I don't yet understand what you're trying to say.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Under what context do you think it should be changed? And under what context do you think I believe it should be changed? I don't think this discussion is pointless or cyclical because I don't yet understand what you're trying to say.
raciccarone raciccarone 7 years
Mich, I didn't think you were arguing, it's just we keep going around and around. I think, as you probably guessed, that the constitution is a living document and, unless I am way off base, you believe the opposite. The debate isn't whether we can or can't change the constitution - we can, via amendments - it was the context under which the constitution should or should not be changed, which we clearly disagree. That's all, and I just thought it was a pointless argument, like pro-life/pro-choice. It's a belief system thing.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
UnDave, that is. Org is pretty painfully wrong.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Couldn't be more right.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Couldn't be more right.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
Why wouldn't people want the Supreme Court to make laws from the bench? They're in perfect position to take into account societal progress when interpreting the wording of the constitution as it is written. The constitution is completely outdated. It was written so long ago that who even knows what it means. It's important that we make it relevant to our new, hip hop culture.
organicsugr organicsugr 7 years
Why wouldn't people want the Supreme Court to make laws from the bench? They're in perfect position to take into account societal progress when interpreting the wording of the constitution as it is written.The constitution is completely outdated. It was written so long ago that who even knows what it means. It's important that we make it relevant to our new, hip hop culture.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I think what you are trying to say is that it's the job of the legislative branch to make amendments to the constition, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure any amendments are "constitutional". Am I right in saying you don't want the Judicial branch creating laws from the bench?
Michelann Michelann 7 years
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to have a discussion. I don't know what your saying, and I'm trying to figure it out. What does 'we agree on content, not context' mean?
Latest Love
X