|
rwb
Van Wert, OH
|
akpilot wrote: <quoted text>
You have a very limited understanding of the Constitution. I would venture somewhere in the order of a 6th Grade comprehension level. That is the problem with the school system, they teach the Constitution out of a text book, taking little snippets and adding the opinion of the authors, rather than using the actual text and the words of the drafters.
In your example above with Utah, under the founders understanding of the Constitution, the State of Utah would be well within its right to do so. I already gave you numerous examples of States which had such laws, the founders took no issue with them. It wasn't until 1961 when the SCOTUS declared they knew better than the drafters as to the meaning of the words and ruled such practices to be "unconstitutional" completely ignoring over 100 years of accepted practice starting with the very men who drafted the document, men whom we must assume had the greatest understanding of the words contained within, far beyond anyone alive today.
The Constitution was drafted to protect the states and the citizens from the newly formed Federal Government. The States weren't interested in creating a government which would control them, and have power over them. Think about how stupid that sounds. What purpose would it serve? Remember, the Federal Government didn't form itself, it was formed by the States through their ratification of the Constitution. There was merely one section in that document which limited the power of the state- Article I Section 10- everything else was in regards to the powers or lack of for the Federal Government.
Now, why do we have a Bill of Rights? It wasn't to protect the rights of the citizen from "government", it was to protect the rights of the State and the Citizen from the Federal Government. To understand this you must read the transcripts of the State Ratification debates, most notably Massachusetts where the push for a Bill of Rights started and was even a condition for not revoking ratification, Virginia and New York followed suit. They felt the Constitution as drafted didn't limit the Federal Government enough, they wanted further protection. Madison argued against the Bill of Rights because he understood that the Constitution did not grant the Federal Government the enumerated powers to control ANY of the items the States were concerned with, thus there was no need for it. He went even further to warn that the addition of the Bill of Rights would lead some to feel that the Federal Government wasn't limited by Article I Section 8, for why would we need to outline certain items while leaving others out if in fact Article I Section 8 was to be read to enumerate specific powers with no room for deviation.(How right he was) It is because of Madison fear that he drafted the 9th and the 10th Amendments- to remove any doubt.
The state would have no interest in removing its power and giving it to the federal government. Do you think for an instant that New Hampshire which required all who were members of the State Legislature to be Protestant, for example, would vote to ratify an Amendment which would make that law null and void? It doesn't even make sense, and it wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to prevent the federal government from passing a law which stated that all citizens of ALL the states would be Protestant. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials... Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
|
|
Frank Rizzo
Union City, CA
|
Winston Smith wrote: <quoted text>
You've got a bit of a reading and comprehension problem. I simply used his own accusations to reveal that he was lying. It was just a matter of peeling the layers back. You've got a problem with the truth. You're very good with euphemisms though. "...just a matter of peeling the layers back.", "I just plucked the false bits out". Priceless!
|
|
Truth has no lib friends
Redding, CA
|
Winston Smith wrote: <quoted text>
Yes, democrats that were very religious and very conservative. You know, like right wing republicans of today. In other words, in spite of the name, they're the equivalent to modern day republicans. A rose by any other name. Why you think this is a LOL moment for you shows what a tool you really are. Just because it fits you so well!!! A gullible person who claims to have a political view that is liberal, but is obviously completely ignorant of the facts and or history, or will blatantly ignore them. A person that has little or no respect for anything or anyone that has contributed to their lives in practical ways. A person who has based their political view on the fact that they either want everything given to them without earning it, or want to legalize drugs, or will habitually blame others for their own mistakes. Traditionally a person with a narcissistic, holier than thou personality that is unable to face reality, and will spend more time tearing others down, rather than doing what is needed to build themselves up. Typically those who are Godless and immoral.
|
|
Edgar
Spring, TX
|
Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
my views have not changed.........LOL
No a child........
Have you ever seen a partial birth abortion??
How about a late term one???
That us a child that would have lived
Who wants to ban guns???
Liberals
Who wants to ban certain types of ammo?
Liberals
Who wants to force automakers to make tiny cars??
Liberals
Who wants to ban the incandescent light bulb?
Liberals
Who tells you what type of windows to install in your house
Fat gore and the liberals
Who wants to ban home schooling and the voucher system??
Liberals
Would you like me to continue?? So you LOL'd at my telling you that you were unfairly stereotyping and generalizing, Then you went off on another rant in which you stereotyped and generalized at least a dozen times? Seems legit.
|
|
Winston Smith
Ellicott City, MD
|
Truth has no lib friends wrote: <quoted text>
Just because it fits you so well!!!
A gullible person who claims to have a political view that is liberal, but is obviously completely ignorant of the facts and or history, or will blatantly ignore them. A person that has little or no respect for anything or anyone that has contributed to their lives in practical ways. A person who has based their political view on the fact that they either want everything given to them without earning it, or want to legalize drugs, or will habitually blame others for their own mistakes. Traditionally a person with a narcissistic, holier than thou personality that is unable to face reality, and will spend more time tearing others down, rather than doing what is needed to build themselves up. Typically those who are Godless and immoral. Interesting response. Too bad you didn't really address anything about the reality behind southern democrats and the klan. Are you suggesting that the folks who started the klan, or revived it the first time, or the third time weren't deeply religious and right wing? If so try giving some evidence to support your statement, apart from equating democrats with liberals with little respect for the difference between a southern democrat in the late 1800s or early to mid 1900s as compared to more liberal democrats of today. I'm of the mind that you haven't spent much, if any time in the south or you'd know what the political leanings are of most of the southerners that are not too fond of black folk. I'll give you a hint, they don't tend to vote for democrats. I do find the legalize drugs bit to be quite amuzing. Does it mean liberals like Pat Roberston, George Will, or Katie Kieffer, William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, Rich Lowry, Gary Johnson, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Glenn Beck, Tom Tancredo, Bob Barr, Grover Norquist, George Shultz, Ron Paul, or Thomas Sowell Or perhaps it means a slew of libertarians. Those pesky liberal libertarians!
|
|
Since: Apr 09
Elmont, Long Island NY
|
Please wait...
Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
my views have not changed.........LOL
No a child........
Have you ever seen a partial birth abortion??
How about a late term one???
That us a child that would have lived?? How many unwanted children have you seen go hungry. Of all the industrialized nations in the world we have the highest infant mortality rate the highest percentage of children who are malnourished how many unwanted children do you see in the street and that end up in gangs we have the highest prison population in the world, 2.3 million, compared to China's 1.6 million and yet they have 4X the population. Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Who wants to ban guns???
Liberals?? most liberals don't want to ban them, we just want a little more control,we don't ex-cons, drug addicts, mentally imbalanced people having guns. We'd like to require backround checks. Heck, people have to do more to drive a car then buy a gun. btw, I'm a liberal and I have a large collection of weapons. Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Who wants to ban certain types of ammo?
Liberals?? along with almost every law enforcement agency, police chief and lawmen in the country. Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Who wants to force automakers to make tiny cars??
Liberals?? no, we just want higher miles per gallon, unless of course you prefer to beholden to Middle East despots and Islamic terrorists. Guess you prefer that we keep shipping millions of dollars to the Middle East so they can use it to buy weapons to attack us. Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Who wants to ban the incandescent light bulb?
Liberals?? again, let's take advantage of our technology and move out of the early 1900's when Edison invented it. Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Who tells you what type of windows to install in your house
Fat gore and the liberals?? Never saw them ask for a law mandating it. But I do believe in tax incentives to lower our dependence on Middle East Oil. Again, if you prefer to ship millions of dollars to the Middle East to support Islamic terrorists, keep doing what you're doing but hey, do you have a link where us liberals tried to enact a law mandating what type windows you can install on your house?? BTW, we liberals also mandated laminated safety glass for windshields, seat belts in cars, overtime pay for anything over 40 hours, the 40 hour work week, 2 day weekends, FDA testing of drugs, fire alarms & smoke detectors in apartments, how's that all working out for you????? Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Who wants to ban home schooling and the voucher system??
Liberals?? Now that I would agree on. too many religious fanatics are teaching their children a load of crap Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
Would you like me to continue?? pary tell please do, its really amusing just how ignorant, narrow minded and uninformed you really are. I would bet you were home schooled
|
|
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote: <quoted text>So you are telling me that A state can require that its citizens become a member of a certain church, really? Tell me AK can Mississippi also bring back slavery? How about Texas removing the right to vote for all women. What you are telling me is that any state can ignore the Constitution. You obviously can't read. You asked the same exact questions I already answered. I even gave you historical reference. I guess your just an idiot.
|
|
RiccardoFire
Elk Grove, CA
|
"we just want a little more control,we don't ex-cons, drug addicts, mentally imbalanced people having guns. We'd like to require backround checks. Heck, people have to do more to drive a car then buy a gun." Hey idiot, they do have background checks, do you think the cons and addicts buy them legally? Maybe they get them from eric holder.........."we just want higher miles per gallon, unless of course you prefer to beholden to Middle East despots and Islamic terrorists."...Government doesn't control the market, when the price lowers for a car that runs on air, then the people will buy them.
|
|
|
|
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Thomas wrote: <quoted text>
This is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. Unfortunately, these "referenda" often contradict what is clearly spelled out in our national constitution. We fought a national, civil war over another subject that a majority (in certain states) were all for. Voting is important, but majority rule is not the basis for our republic-style of government. Vote, but be aware that a referendum on the ballot may not be constitutional. Wow, the educational system has really gone down hill. You seriously think the Civil War was about slavery? It had very little do with slavery at all, the north was just as racist as the south when it came to blacks, they would hardly fight a war over them. Lincoln couldn't have gave a damn either, all one has to do is read the Emancipation Proclamation, he only freed slaves in areas the Union had no control over, he did nothing for slaves in the south where the Union had taken control. Lincoln only wanted one thing, to keep the union together, even if that meant circumventing the Constitution. You think Bush was bad, you should read up on good ole Abe. ""My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."- Abraham Lincoln.
|
|
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
lides wrote: <quoted text>
Blah Blah Blah Yawn.
|
|
Since: Jun 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
rwb wrote: <quoted text> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials... Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Again you show that you do not understand the meaning of the words you are citing. NOTE- the only laws which are binding as the law of the land are those made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution. Any laws the Congress passes which fall outside of those powers expressly enumerated to them by the Constitution- Article I Section 8- are not made in pursuance of the Constitution and are thus null and void before the ink even hits the paper. Boy our founders were smart, too bad we all got stupid and screwed it up.
|
|
thisGuy
Harker Heights, TX
|
"Gay" people seem to define their entire existence around what they like to do with their sex organs. That isn't "gay," that's sad.
|
|
Edgar
Spring, TX
|
thisGuy wrote: "Gay" people seem to define their entire existence around what they like to do with their sex organs.
That isn't "gay," that's sad. How many gay people do you know? I know dozens and none of them "define their entire existence around what they like to do with their sex organs". But I'm sure you're educated on this, oh I have no doubt...
|
|
Edgar
Spring, TX
|
akpilot wrote: <quoted text>
You obviously can't read. You asked the same exact questions I already answered. I even gave you historical reference.
I guess your just an idiot. Excuse me, sir, you obviously don't know the proper difference between "your" and "you're". If you're going to say someone's an idiot, make sure you spell "you're" correctly. I guess *you're just ignorant.
|
|
Frank Rizzo
Union City, CA
|
Edgar wrote: <quoted text>
Excuse me, sir, you obviously don't know the proper difference between "your" and "you're".
If you're going to say someone's an idiot, make sure you spell "you're" correctly.
I guess *you're just ignorant. Gotta admit, saying "Your an idiot" begs ridicule. But your (YUK!YUK!YUK!) evading the issue.
|
|
Edgar
Spring, TX
|
Frank Rizzo wrote: <quoted text>
Gotta admit, saying "Your an idiot" begs ridicule. But your (YUK!YUK!YUK!) evading the issue. I've already made my point, this is just a response to a response. If my intention were to evade anything on here I wouldn't have posted a single comment.
|
|
Justa me
Clearlake, CA
|
Here Is One wrote: <quoted text>
my views have not changed.........LOL
No a child........
Have you ever seen a partial birth abortion??
How about a late term one???
That us a child that would have lived
Who wants to ban guns???
Liberals
Who wants to ban certain types of ammo?
Liberals
Who wants to force automakers to make tiny cars??
Liberals
Who wants to ban the incandescent light bulb?
Liberals
Who tells you what type of windows to install in your house
Fat gore and the liberals
Who wants to ban home schooling and the voucher system??
Liberals
Would you like me to continue?? Please do!
|
|
The Corbomite Maneuver
Tempe, AZ
|
Edgar wrote: <quoted text>
I've already made my point, this is just a response to a response.
If my intention were to evade anything on here I wouldn't have posted a single comment. No, you have evaded many issues and you ran like a little sissy from the posted fact of SB48. Obvious, your brain is still in the primitive stage, because most of you post dribble and evade issues.
|
|
The Corbomite Maneuver
Tempe, AZ
|
Edgar wrote: <quoted text>
Yea, and look at all the positions that defined liberal then and the statistics and placement of liberals then and then look at them now. Conservatives used to be the urban, youthful, northern, activist party. But you've flipped.
<quoted text>
You mean a fetus? That's not a child. If we were all children since conception our birthdays should all be pushed earlier by 9 months.
<quoted text>
No, first I would like you to support all of your claims. You generalized all liberals to this, and I'm a liberal, and I know many, and neither I nor any of my liberal friends support undermining any of the rights you just listed. You post foolish dribble so according to you people should stop having birthdays at when they cease to be a child. It is called an unborn child, and it is in its early stage of development. Obviously, since you have not evolved past puberty, you do not understand that although at 18 you will be an adult human, you are still a human now.
|
|
thu062012
Vietnam
|
Hi I read some opinions in this topic. I do not agree above ideal. We can find out some articles at about.com by using Google search. If you want to get more materials that related to this topic, you can visit: http://interviewquestionsandanswers.biz/produ... Best regards.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Pisces
