Theocracy

@josephw said
A theocracy is antithetical to the constitution. It ain't gonna happen.

This is not an answer to the question. Obviously, any constitution in any country can be amended. The question is this: What do you think would be the electoral mathematics, both at the ballot box and in the legislatures, that would render such an amendment valid?

@josephw said
The constitution doesn't need to be amended. The efforts of those that seek to do so see and know that the constitution, as is, is an impediment to an ideological agenda that is in opposition to the freedoms guaranteed to Americans.

I promise you this, there will be a revolution if the leftists continue to force, unconstitutionally, their agenda to supplant the constitutio ...[text shortened]...

A theocracy is antithetical to the constitution. It ain't gonna happen.

Your question is moot.

The constitution doesn't need to be amended. The efforts of those that seek to do so see and know that the constitution, as is, is an impediment to an ideological agenda that is in opposition to the freedoms guaranteed to Americans. I promise you this, there will be a revolution if the leftists continue to force, unconstitutionally, their agenda to supplant the constitution with a socialist/Marxist form of government. In fact, that revolution is already in motion. I grew up in America. I've witnessed 50 years of the policies of leftist/liberalism literally destroy this culture in the name of freedom and progressivism. All lies! Now "they" are gunning for our constitutional rights, mainly the first and second amendments, and the confrontation may very well be bloody. I'm not a politician, so I couldn't care less about electoral mathematics, or polling data or anything else. It took a revolution to form our constitution and country, and it will probably take a revolution to keep it.

This is all tangential and evasive waffle. Furthermore, I don't think you have the slightest clue what "Marxist" means; so, I'll add politically illiterate to the list,

@josephw said
Actually, we read the constitution, learn from experience and try not to repeat history.

Is that why y'all want Trump back in the WH?

If you do, then you:
1. Don't read the Constitution.
2. Don't learn from experience.
3. Really want to repeat history.

@josephw said
The constitution doesn't need to be amended. The efforts of those that seek to do so see and know that the constitution, as is, is an impediment to an ideological agenda that is in opposition to the freedoms guaranteed to Americans.

I promise you this, there will be a revolution if the leftists continue to force, unconstitutionally, their agenda to supplant the constitutio ...[text shortened]...

A theocracy is antithetical to the constitution. It ain't gonna happen.

Your question is moot.

You have the wrong end of the stick here, man.

@suzianne said
You have the wrong end of the stick here, man.

But Josephw is a Christian, “man”…

@fmf said
If there were a country or a state where a portion of the population wanted to amend its constitution in order to become a theocracy, what do you think would be the democratic mathematics, so to speak, that would render such a change valid and just?

They would have to secede from the union or perhaps just renegotiate themselves into be an autonomous state or a special territory, IMO.

@divegeester said
But Josephw is a Christian, “man”…

So? What's your point?


Ohhh, yeah, slagging me.

@suzianne said
So? What's your point?

Two points:

Point 1: Josephw is a Republican Christian, but you have said elsewhere that there is no such thing. That there is no such thing a Republican who is a true Christian.

Point 2: noting your occasional use of “man” when appealing to someone’s usual allegiance to you on most topics, when you are disagreeing with them on another. It’s an affectation I find curious.

@suzianne said
Ohhh, yeah, slagging me.

“Slagging”

Are you playing the victim again here?