Does the flexibility of the US Constitution prevent the US people from revolting against the government?
No and if anything it inspires the population to do so when looked at. There are amendments and these have been in essence a type of revolt against the established government. Revolting against the government is not revolting against our American ideals as many politicians may have the population believe. It is becoming more and more apparent that as a nation the United States has come to an important crossroads, and I am confident that the people will overcome injustice, corporate and political manipulation, as well as the impact of media. We are a great nation, built on human values and hope for a better future and opportunities for all mankind. The American people will stand, and they will stand tall!
Government Question? What are Enforcement Provisions?
The purpose of the law is to govern conduct. This is often accomplished by announcing a rule, which may be a mandate or prohibition, and prescribing a punishment for noncompliance or a reward for compliance. The announcement of a rule is referred to in this manual as a substantive provision, and the prescribing of a consequence is called an enforcement provision. Not every statute neatly segregates substantive provisions from enforcement provisions. A law that provides that "A person who slanders the king shall be hanged" is equivalent to the substantive provision "A person may not slander the king" and the enforcement provision "A person who violates this law shall be hanged." However, it is usually better organization to separate substance and enforcement in all but the simplest statutes. The following discussion focuses on some of the more common types of enforcement provisions: criminal, civil, and administrative. http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/legal/dm/sec3... Once ratified, constitutional amendments become the law of the land, equal in authority to provisions in the original Constitution itself. Just as some clauses in the original constitutional text grant powers to Congress, so too have some amendments expanded congressional authority. Eight amendments include specific congressional enforcement provisions. http://www.answers.com/topic/congression...
Is gun-control fascist or socialism?
Actually the idea that Hitler introduced gun control in Germany is just another myth. Hitler relaxed the permit requirements for gun ownership in Germany. "Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds." "Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated."
Is gun-control fascist or socialism?
Actually the idea that Hitler introduced gun control in Germany is just another myth. Hitler relaxed the permit requirements for gun ownership in Germany. "Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds." "Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated."
Why do fascist cons support stop and frisk laws?
Since a ridiculously low number of criminals have been caught with this (I think 2% of the frisks) I would think most people would be against it. Except Fascist Cons.
Why do progressive often call conservatives "nazis", when actual National Socialists were actually third-way progressives just like them?
Left wingers are always desperate to blame the right wing for what the left wing did. Left wingers don't want to admit that a left wing government caused the Holocaust, slavery, segregation, and KKK lynchings. So they pretend the parties magically switched places one night, and they say somehow Republicans are to blame for what Hitler did. They can't explain how George Wallace and John F. Kennedy were both Democrats in 1963. They can't explain why the last KKK member in Congress was a life long Democrat who lived until 2010. It's always "Yes, but but but but....he repented" or some such nonsense. Liberals simply can't handle reality. Nobody has ever provided a coherent argument for saying that fascism is right wing. It always comes down to either "It is by definition" or "It is because we say so." The actual history of labeling fascism as right wing arose out of the Bolshevik propaganda of the time when fascism was new. Joseph Stalin had emerged as the leader of the Bolshevik revolution, and when Mussolini came along and rose to power much faster than Stalin did, of course Stalin was outraged, and he called it right wing. The idea that "fascism is right wing" is pure left wing propaganda, and nothing more.