Should We Open the Entire Constitution for Changes? (Cherokee Nation votes on an Article 5-like Convention)

Native News Online ^ | March 31, 2024 | Chuck Hoskin

[anton]

I’m for amending the Constitution if they are thinking about making racial profiling legal and eliminating the prohibition on “stop and frisk.”

[Guenevere]

The North Carolina Cherokee definitely were removed to Oklahoma, although a number hid in the mountains and refused to go

There is even a long running outdoor drama called Unto These Hills that relays the storyline of the removal

The present day North Carolina Cherokee are proud of their heritage and govern themselves well

[Ultra Sonic 007]

It's common practice on FR that items in parentheses are user additions to the actual headline, and not the actual headline itself.

To say "Cherokee Nation votes on an Article 5-like Convention" is to draw an analogy to the Article V process, not to say it is the Article V process.

You may criticize it as an inaccurate analogy, but there's no need to accuse DoodleBob of "mental masturbation".

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The problem is you SEARCHED using your homemade headline.

You need to search with the actual headline, not the one you adulterated.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

The problem is you SEARCHED using your homemade headline. You need to search with the actual headline, not the one you adulterated.

What are you talking about?

The headline for this FR post is as follows: Should We Open the Entire Constitution for Changes? (Cherokee Nation votes on an Article 5-like Convention)

"Should We Open the Entire Constitution for Changes?" is the original article headline at Native News Online.

"(Cherokee Nation votes on an Article 5-like Convention)" is the additional commentary provided by DoodleBob to the original headline, likely as some sort of explanatory analogy (since those looking at just the original headline would probably assume they're talking about the United States Constitution instead of the Cherokee Constitution...which is what you did, come to think of it).

Searching by the original article headline still works regardless, so your assertion is unfounded. As it stands, you're coming across as someone going out of their way to be angry about a trivial misunderstanding, and I don't get why.