Results: The United States Constitution, and what it means
Published on 07/07/2015
QUESTIONS
GO to COMMENTS
Comments
1.
1.
The United States Constitution has been around a lot longer than the laws of individual states and the federal government, so I am curious about what it means to individuals. I'll start with innocent until proven guilty. We need to do away with this one--the police would never charge someone who wasn't guilty
5%
85 votes
It means what it says--we should assume that people are innocent regardless of what charges the police recommend
39%
709 votes
Why should I believe the police?
6%
117 votes
In some cases I agree with innocent until proven guilty, in some I don't
32%
584 votes
N/A
25%
447 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
12 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.15% | 3 | |
| there are no laws in the district of columbia. | 0.05% | 1 |
| when help has arrived it is time to remember to help-it's our turn to do so. | 0.05% | 1 |
| it means that someone cannot be convicted of a crime without enough proof that they actually committed one | 0.05% | 1 |
| i think it is sad if you go change the laws of our forefathers | 0.05% | 1 |
| it would be nice if you were actually treated innocent until they prove otherwise | 0.05% | 1 |
| what? | 0.05% | 1 |
| it means a person is innocent until the police or lawyers prove otherwise | 0.05% | 1 |
| all must be covered by this right otherwise it becomes a legal and social slippery slope about who gets this and who doesn't. | 0.05% | 1 |
| its an ideal only. the reality is its guilty unless proven innocent | 0.05% | 1 |
2.
2.
There seems to be a lot of furor about the Supreme Court's latest decision concerning gay marriage. How many people have actually read the Court's decision? I don't need to read it--whatever Fox news/NBC said must be correct
11%
206 votes
I received e-mails about it, and I think that's enough
4%
75 votes
I tried to read it, but didn't understand what it meant.
6%
114 votes
I read the decision, and based my decision on the strength of the decision
15%
276 votes
N/A
58%
1055 votes
Other (please specify)
4%
80 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.78% | 14 | |
| i didn't read it | 0.11% | 2 |
| i would be interested in reading it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i only agrre to marriage for a man and a woman yet a plegal pantership for same sex couples who desire to b united til death do they part. | 0.06% | 1 |
| read disenting opinions | 0.06% | 1 |
| never read it | 0.06% | 1 |
| glad the decision is made and we can all move on from this subject | 0.06% | 1 |
| didn't read it, didn't know how | 0.06% | 1 |
| i didn't read it, but i think if you love someone and want to marry them you should have that right. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i only read news reports. until changed it is law. | 0.06% | 1 |
| who cares | 0.06% | 1 |
| it doesn't matter what the supreme court says. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i don't care let the marry the dog i don't care | 0.06% | 1 |
| i did not readit | 0.06% | 1 |
| thyey have be came the voice of the american people. how sad | 0.06% | 1 |
| i know their decision and totally disagree with them | 0.06% | 1 |
| did not read, but support it | 0.06% | 1 |
| i just don't believe in it | 0.06% | 1 |
| i let my friends read it and explain | 0.06% | 1 |
| i read the bible | 0.06% | 1 |
| absurd. | 0.06% | 1 |
| it's wrong despite what the supreme court says about it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| have read a number of summaries from a variety of news sources | 0.06% | 1 |
| i did not read it, i also do not watch fox news | 0.06% | 1 |
| i read it on tellwut | 0.06% | 1 |
| i haven't had the opportunity to read it | 0.06% | 1 |
| read articles and summaries from multiple sources. | 0.06% | 1 |
| no | 0.06% | 1 |
| i have not read it | 0.06% | 1 |
| huh? | 0.06% | 1 |
| i have not read it, but understand equal rights is applied to gay marriage. | 0.06% | 1 |
| do not agree with same sex marriage not reading material either | 0.06% | 1 |
| i have not read it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| the bible says it's wrong and that is all i need. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i didn't read it, only know what the news says | 0.06% | 1 |
| the court's decision is utter bullshit. marriage in between one man and one woman. don;t see how gays and lesbians body parts fit together to have sex. so i did not read the rubbish. | 0.06% | 1 |
| who cares? | 0.06% | 1 |
| haven't followed | 0.06% | 1 |
| just haven't gotten around to reading it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| it doesn't matter what the court decided as soon as the government wants to change the law again the supreme court will just reinterpret the constitution and change the law again like they always do.they never think it means what it says. | 0.06% | 1 |
| have not read it | 0.06% | 1 |
| i read a review in my local newspaper. it seemed thorough enough and matched what nbc news said. | 0.06% | 1 |
| gay mirage (happy illusion) was wrong before the scotus decision and still wrong after it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| gays should not marry | 0.06% | 1 |
| it's all horseshit one way or another. | 0.06% | 1 |
| this question has shitty choices, and the first option is very biased, and i refuse to pick it because of that. | 0.06% | 1 |
| insulting choices | 0.06% | 1 |
| haven't read it | 0.06% | 1 |
| the urine disease has destroyed the brains with acid. | 0.06% | 1 |
| read about it over the internet | 0.06% | 1 |
| you have to be able to see the underlying purpose of this..its insidious.just like microwave ovens are banned in all the other countries because of health damage they cause...yet theyre still stupidly used here..what is the real motive? | 0.06% | 1 |
| have read most of the justices' comments | 0.06% | 1 |
| don't have to read it to know that it is a state's rights issue | 0.06% | 1 |
| not me | 0.06% | 1 |
| understanding the implications is all that matters to me. i'm not a lawyer, i'm not going to find some magical fallacy. shaming people for not reading a 100+ page court document is silly. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i haven't read it - enough said. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i have read the constitution and disagree with the court's decision | 0.06% | 1 |
| i haven't read it because i don't care | 0.06% | 1 |
| couldn't care a less | 0.06% | 1 |
| i did not read it but agree | 0.06% | 1 |
| do not care | 0.06% | 1 |
| all i know is that the approved it and that is just wrong | 0.06% | 1 |
| i'm not gay so i'm not effected. i didn't read it and i probably won't. all i know is a simple human right has finally been allowed for gay people | 0.06% | 1 |
| legal relationships are very acceptable, marriage, to me, is relationship between man & woman!! | 0.06% | 1 |
| i have not yet read it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| i have read the decision | 0.06% | 1 |
3.
3.
How about Freedom of Speech? It means that as a citizen, I can say whatever I want, and there will be no consequences.
9%
164 votes
It means that as a citizen, I can say whatever I want, but I also accept that there may be negative reactions.
43%
776 votes
Freedom of speech is limited, there are types of speech that are not protected.
29%
522 votes
N/A
26%
476 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
19 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.26% | 5 | |
| it also means that the government has to protect your right to say whatever you want and procecute those who break the law because they don't like it. | 0.05% | 1 |
| the law is messed up | 0.05% | 1 |
| freedom is an illusion. | 0.05% | 1 |
| not sure | 0.05% | 1 |
| it means i can say what i want but i must also live with the consequences. | 0.05% | 1 |
| freedom of speech is is not to say things to hurt others | 0.05% | 1 |
| citizens have the freedom to speak without fear of reprisal from the government (does not mean your employer/friend/whatever will not have a negative reaction) | 0.05% | 1 |
| no such thing anymore | 0.05% | 1 |
| be ready for consequences, such as slander with your freedom of speech | 0.05% | 1 |
| freedom of speach pertains to political speech | 0.05% | 1 |
| you are free to speak and accept how society will determiine what is acceptable | 0.05% | 1 |
| means that i am entitled to my opinion as long as it does not impeach upon the rights of others. | 0.05% | 1 |
| confusing | 0.05% | 1 |
| there may be social consequences but the courts are placing legal consequences against some forms of free speech (ex: fined the bakery that refused service to a gay wedding. bakery is now out of business and under a gag order or face more fines. | 0.05% | 1 |
4.
4.
What about passing a law to change a Constitutional decision from the Supreme Court? If it is truly a Constitutional decision, it can't be overridden by a law, only by a Constitutional amendment.
32%
575 votes
Congress can clearly pass a law disagreeing with the Supreme Court
16%
282 votes
Impeach the Justices
9%
155 votes
N/A
45%
821 votes
Other (please specify)
2%
28 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.43% | 8 | |
| not sure | 0.27% | 5 |
| i don't know | 0.05% | 1 |
| don't know | 0.05% | 1 |
| what are you getting at? | 0.05% | 1 |
| no | 0.05% | 1 |
| not sure about this one, as i'm canadian | 0.05% | 1 |
| the american people like greece have not vote | 0.05% | 1 |
| do not understand | 0.05% | 1 |
| something must be done if people don,t change | 0.05% | 1 |
| congress can pass a new law that may negate the decision | 0.05% | 1 |
| he who has the gold makes the rules. | 0.05% | 1 |
| it is a check and balance system. congress writes the law. the court interprets the law. the administration enforces the law. no one group does it all. | 0.05% | 1 |
| don't know about this one | 0.05% | 1 |
| the constitution doesn't mean anything anymore.if the government wants to do something the citizens won't support,they just pass a law allowing them to do it and if people say the law isn't constitutional they get the courts to make it legal. | 0.05% | 1 |
| unsure | 0.05% | 1 |
| quesion's worded oddly;you mean what again, suse? | 0.05% | 1 |
5.
5.
Okay, here's a sticky one--separation of Church and State. What does it mean to you? I think it has gone too far--religion is part of our every day lives
21%
385 votes
I believe the recent events with ISIL, et al. demonstrate exactly why separation of church and state is necessary
22%
395 votes
I believe it has gone too far, especially when it is MY religion that is challenged
8%
148 votes
What's fair is fair--if my religion is incorporated into government, others should be as well.
11%
193 votes
N/A
39%
713 votes
Other (please specify)
3%
62 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.47% | 9 | |
| not sure | 0.11% | 2 |
| it means the gov will have no personal feelings one way or the other towards my religion, will not favor nor hinder it. | 0.05% | 1 |
| religion? | 0.05% | 1 |
| confusing choices. | 0.05% | 1 |
| respond like australia-this is how we live..if you dont like it then go back to where you belong. | 0.05% | 1 |
| it was originally to protect religious people from their rights being violated | 0.05% | 1 |
| it obviously does not matter anymore because religion is no longer respected by out government. how sad | 0.05% | 1 |
| means exactly what it states | 0.05% | 1 |
| our country was a god fearing country so be it. | 0.05% | 1 |
| don't care what your religion is, as long as you can guarantee that someone will pick up my garbage & you work for me, the people | 0.05% | 1 |
| chuch and state must be seprate | 0.05% | 1 |
| it's misunderstood - original intent was to keep state out of church not church out of state and the only church was a christian one | 0.05% | 1 |
| the overturning of everything in the country may or may not be a good thing, but it's happening too quickly; this is one area we should move more slowly; this country was based on christian principles whether most believe in them or not. | 0.05% | 1 |
| state and church operate in two seperate spheres state is not allowed to own/operate church that is what we gained our independence from. | 0.05% | 1 |
| cannot decide | 0.05% | 1 |
| keep religion out of government, and work to keep it out of modern day society. | 0.05% | 1 |
| religious beliefs do not belong in government decisions. especially since every citizen has a different belief system. | 0.05% | 1 |
| church needs to be separate from all forms of government. | 0.05% | 1 |
| clearer questions please | 0.05% | 1 |
| serparate it! | 0.05% | 1 |
| don't have an opinion, i can practice my relgion with or without government involvement | 0.05% | 1 |
| public schools should be seperate from religion. if people want religion they can send kids to a religious school | 0.05% | 1 |
| the government has to represent all the people so religions need to stay out of it. you can't legislate morality any way. | 0.05% | 1 |
| first of all there is no separation between church & state & that's the problem,religion and politics have no business mingling and that's why god is going to destroy these false religions & then finally all forms of human governments including democ | 0.05% | 1 |
| the purpose of the separation was to prevent the government for creating a national religion; much like the situation in great britain. | 0.05% | 1 |
| misleading talk of "separation of church and state" obscures the true meaning of the first amendment. | 0.05% | 1 |
| how can they say separate church for state when on we have in god we trust on our money | 0.05% | 1 |
| the phrase was coined by a letter from thomas jefferson to baptists in ct, and the intent of the constitutional provision is to keep from the institution of a state church, with which most of the nation's founders were familiar with king henry | 0.05% | 1 |
| it means the state stay out of the church not the church stay of the state | 0.05% | 1 |
| what's fair is fair-- i want to be respected for my religious belief (or no religion) i need to respect others rights to their beliefs and no government should promote or discourage the freedom of belief. | 0.05% | 1 |
| not aware of this | 0.05% | 1 |
| church has no business in effective government,neither does political correctness or any other nonsense | 0.05% | 1 |
| government cannot dictate a religion for the country. people are free to choose. | 0.05% | 1 |
| this was never law!!! it was a side comment made by jefferson in a letter to a friend | 0.05% | 1 |
| believe what you want but law is law and law needs to be first | 0.05% | 1 |
| religion should be outlawed. | 0.05% | 1 |
| the state cannot endorse or promote any religion over another | 0.05% | 1 |
| there is no religion in the united states. | 0.05% | 1 |
| the state is to stay out of religion not the other way round. | 0.05% | 1 |
| i am sick and tired of this damn topic. keep it separate and stop trying to change someone to your beliefs! | 0.05% | 1 |
| it means religion does not have a place in our goverment | 0.05% | 1 |
| i thought it meant that the government can't be run by a "church", that is, that the government and religion must be two separate things. | 0.05% | 1 |
| i believe it's about conducting government without religion mixing in to decisions | 0.05% | 1 |
| separation of church and state was intended to protect freedom of religion, not freedom from religion | 0.05% | 1 |
| none should be "incorporated into gov't" but it's not supposed to be freedom from all things religious... its gone too far | 0.05% | 1 |
| absolutely should be separate | 0.05% | 1 |
| it means that the government can't institute a state religion. | 0.05% | 1 |
| we should practice our religion whether it is legal or not. the bible tells us to love our neighbor. doesn't this answer all of the problems we see in the world today? | 0.05% | 1 |
| has not gone far enough. churches currently have special privileges and should lose their tax-free status | 0.05% | 1 |
| it's necessary since we accept all religions | 0.05% | 1 |
| i believe it should be held ..if a church accpets gov help in anyway it nullifies its seperation and can be taxed an held as a corporation. religion and politics do not go together!!! | 0.05% | 1 |
| means exactly what it says, church has no part in government. | 0.05% | 1 |
COMMENTS