| Author |
Message |
|---|
 ExVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2883
Credit: 1,156,445
RAC: 866
|
|
That's exactly what they want Skill...
That law right there would eliminate me, and so many other blue voters, from the polls.
That's exactly what they are after. They just package it up in different fashions.
____________
-Dave #2
  3.2.0-33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Wrap your mind around this one. If the wealthy own all the property and a majority of those wealthy are conservative they could in fact create a defacto one party system in a matter of years.
____________
Proud member of TSWB.
End terrorism by building a school
 |
|
|
|
|
Wrap your mind around this one. If the wealthy own all the property and a majority of those wealthy are conservative they could in fact create a defacto one party system in a matter of years.
even more than our current choice of moderate conservative vs ultra-conservative...
____________
Janice |
|
|
|
|
|
You know, that is one of the very curious things in the American political debate - the ultra-conservatives would have everyone believe that the Democrats and Obama are socialists (or worse). In fact, they are by and large quite conservative (at least by world standards or even by 1970's American standards).
even more than our current choice of moderate conservative vs ultra-conservative...
|
|
|
|
|
the original "contract we have, as is" has evolved to the government we have, as is. And it is up to the citizens, as is to help to continue that evolution.
So.. The Constitution Party of the United States, is Moot.
Thank you soft. Times change, beliefs change, laws change, and the Constitution changes.
Yes the constitution does change, sometimes not for the best. Prohibition is one that comes to mind. Just about everyone in the nation thought it was stupid and ignored it. Organized crime gained a foothold that it never lost after it was repealed. Thats what happens when common sense goes by the wayside.
Agreed. And at one point SCOTUS needed to clarify to the nation that "all men are created equal" applied to people of different colored skin. Now its time to clarify that it applies to people of different sexual orientations as well, and grant them the rights and equalities provided to heterosexuals, as anything else is discrimination by the Tyranny of the Majority.
Ok, poster with no name, I can't let you get away with this one.
SCOTUS did NOT clarify to the nation that "all men are created equal" applied to people of different colored skin. It was the 13th and 15th Amendments.
Anything else is discrimination by the Tyranny of the Majority? Where do you get this stuff? The constitution was written specifically to PREVENT Tyranny of the Majority.
Let me ask you this. What federal law prevents people of different sexual orientations from being equal? Why do you want a law or a decree or a presidental order, or what ever to state this explicitely?
The way it works is if a state wants to explicitly do something like this, the 10th Amendment explicitly states they can do this.
Now, if 3/4 of the states do this and wants to nationalize it, we can do that.
The 13 original states AGREED to join the union as long as the federal government power was limited in accordance with the constitution. And if the states wanted to change the constitution, there's a way to do it!
What I see happening today (as do the members of the Constitution Party of the USA) is states are losing power, or more appropriately, the federal government is SIEZING more and more power from the states, and some of us see that as a recipe for disaster.
So, #1, get your facts straight, and #2 just go ahead and state explicitly you want more power in washington and less power at the local level if that's what you want. |
|
|
|
|
|
Guy, be prepared for a shock -- I am pretty much in agreement with your most recent post here.
This can be a good thing <smile>. |
|
|
|
|
|
They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
-Ronald Reagan, 1964
So, it would seem to some that our founders/framers where for slavery. They were not. Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
You people seem only to know revisionist history. I would tell you to read better books. I'll do that later. Perhaps someone here might tell you of a few?
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 debated the issue of slavery. George Mason of Virginia...“Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes national sins by national calamities.”
John Rutledge, South Carolina... “religion and humanity have nothing to do with the questions” should the Constitution protect slavery[?], it was a question of property rights.
A deal was struck. And it was not the best of both worlds. But for the framers against slavery it was entered into because it left the issue closed, and yet still an open wound to be fixed at a later date. No new slaves would be imported until 1808. The south got 3/5th of a vote per-slave. All 13 approved the Constitution and a New Nation was born under the morals of God. The second such Nation on the face of the earth to do so, the Jewish Nation first.
Now you say, How can slavery be under the morals of God, I.D.? The framers of the north and a few of the south wanted to count chairs and horses, etc, etc as property. Look the story up for yourself. After 1808 the moral framers knew what would happen. The north enacted laws that stopped slavery in their state's. The south imported more slaves for work and to gain an upperhand in congress. New states formed and the fight began. In court first. The Supreme Court, in its stupid decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. So, Scott v Sandford allowed slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. The decision made the Civil War. Chief Justice Roger Taney, for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become citizens within the meaning of the Constitution, and lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.
The real framers knew that it mattered not how slavery ended, but it did matter when. And 1787 was not the when. The country had to unite before it could take on the issue of slavery correctly. They also knew that morals would win over unsound ethics, every time.
As you can see, the court system does not rule over us. Congress does not rule over us. The President does not rule over us. It is "We the People", that make the laws and if needed enforce them laws that we find morally correct. That is the way our Constitution is set up.
This is the differance between the one party you have now, and the Party that I am in and will stand by till my death. Im not a member of the AIP, but I'll stand by them too.
Now go get yourself some schooling with real history, not the revisionist history you have been taught in public schools for sometime now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to hear that Barry. It's nice to see that not EVERYBODY disagrees with me in here.
I just asked this question in another thread and probably should have asked it in this one.
Who in here has sworn an oath to protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? |
|
|
|
|
|
You have folks who agree with some of what you say, I think you have some folks that might not help you by agreeing as well <smile>.
As to the oath -- I don't recall taking that oath -- but it is possible I affirmed it in documents when obtaining clearances while working at a defense contractor in the 80's.
Glad to hear that Barry. It's nice to see that not EVERYBODY disagrees with me in here.
I just asked this question in another thread and probably should have asked it in this one.
Who in here has sworn an oath to protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
|
|
|
|
|
So then why do you advocate that as long as the majority wish to define marriage as between a man and woman as being right? That is nothing more than discrimination against same sex couples.
*Because the majority live here.* By your logic, a minority group of people should be able to justify murder, rape, and burglary, otherwise, it's nothing short of discrimination against murderers, rapists, and burglars.
The south wanted to keep segregation and it deteriorated down into man's last bastion of decision making. War. The same thing is happening with the continued usurpation of power in washington. We keep heading towards disaster and it may come down to another civil war. I don't want that and I'm pretty sure you don't want that. Here's a novel idea, how about we get back to what we agreed to and work within those confines? When the time is right, things can be changed. You're right, times are changing, but it's not changing fast enough for some of you. I'm willing to accept what ever amendments to our constitution come our way, but they have to be done by the rules.
Or it should be applied as it was written and we should stop interpreting it in whatever way suits our personal beliefs. If it requires another amendment, then so be it, but so long as people are still prejudiced of same-sex couples, it won't happen.
You are correct. Accept it.
As a Libertarian, I want less government. Thank you for asking.
Well, you don't lead me to believe this with some of the things you say. If I had to categorize myself, I'd say I'm pretty close to being a libertarian also.
(redacted? why?) |
|
|
|
|
So, it would seem to some that our founders/framers where for slavery. They were not. Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
The southern states were ill at ease with the layout of congress without having the 3/5 compromise. The white non slave population in the south was vastly out numbered by the white populations of the north. The southern plantation states knew it was a matter of time before they were legislatively and representatively useless. This also gave tax benefits from the Federal gov't that the south would have lost out on from the population standpoint.
They threatened to break the union if they didn't get their way.
heres a quote from Wikipedia
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War
____________
Proud member of TSWB.
End terrorism by building a school
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to hear that Barry. It's nice to see that not EVERYBODY disagrees with me in here.
I just asked this question in another thread and probably should have asked it in this one.
Who in here has sworn an oath to protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
I have sworn such an oath.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
 |
|
|
|
|
I started the thread---Im allowed. Stay on topic and don't accuse without proof, and that would require a question not a statement.
I answered.
Im not willing to open the contract we have, as is. Come to point.
No answer to the questions in this post, the same question asked again in this post, and another question added. The questions remain unanswered and instead we've had hand waving about non-specific accusations and then about white sheets.
You said "Original Constitution", I requested clarity on what you meant by this, not what some website says. Please provide that clarity.
ID, still no clarification on what you meant by "Original Constitution", please respond.
The Articles of Conferderation? That original?
If the current USC, does original mean without the Bill of Rights?
If with the Bill of Rights are any other amendments to be included?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
skildude,
and bobby,
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.~ Alexander Hamilton
Wikipedia, is a very poor source of information. Anyone can change it without a peer review, even you.
There was no tax benefits to states in the time of our founding. The states took care of themselves. There was no spending that was outside of the Constitution. As I said, look to the Louisiana Purchase for that hard fought battle in Congress. You didn't did you? Nor did anyone else here for that matter.
It is clearly enumerated what is to be taxed, and how to tax, and what that money is to be used for. And for the most part it did happen that way. It wasn't until 1913 [Wilson, the first socialist President, who by the way lied and got us into WW1] did we go wrong.
The question I asked was if the Dems are the party of Peace then why isn't one asking for their National Guard Troops back from a unconstitutional war? Try that question first. You don't seem to be any good at the other one. |
|
|
|
|
skildude,
and bobby,
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.~ Alexander Hamilton
Wikipedia, is a very poor source of information. Anyone can change it without a peer review, even you.
There was no tax benefits to states in the time of our founding. The states took care of themselves. There was no spending that was outside of the Constitution. As I said, look to the Louisiana Purchase for that hard fought battle in Congress. You didn't did you? Nor did anyone else here for that matter.
It is clearly enumerated what is to be taxed, and how to tax, and what that money is to be used for. And for the most part it did happen that way. It wasn't until 1913 [Wilson, the first socialist President, who by the way lied and got us into WW1] did we go wrong.
The question I asked was if the Dems are the party of Peace then why isn't one asking for their National Guard Troops back from a unconstitutional war? Try that question first. You don't seem to be any good at the other one.
ID, who stated the Dems. were the party of peace? I look at WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam to refute that. I am not putting a value judgment on whether these were wise decisions, but the US involvement did occur under Demo. presidents.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
skildude,
and bobby,
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.~ Alexander Hamilton
Wikipedia, is a very poor source of information. Anyone can change it without a peer review, even you.
There was no tax benefits to states in the time of our founding. The states took care of themselves. There was no spending that was outside of the Constitution. As I said, look to the Louisiana Purchase for that hard fought battle in Congress. You didn't did you? Nor did anyone else here for that matter.
It is clearly enumerated what is to be taxed, and how to tax, and what that money is to be used for. And for the most part it did happen that way. It wasn't until 1913 [Wilson, the first socialist President, who by the way lied and got us into WW1] did we go wrong.
The question I asked was if the Dems are the party of Peace then why isn't one asking for their National Guard Troops back from a unconstitutional war? Try that question first. You don't seem to be any good at the other one.
Does the link indicate that for you the "Original Constitution" means without the Bill of Rights?
I saw your post about the Dems being the "party of Peace". It did not appear to be directed at anyone in particular. "You Dems say you are the Party of Peace and love", I'm not sure who has said that about the Democratic Party, I certainly do not recall having done so, however as betreger rightly says, the description is not accurate, though it seems likely that one or two have protested the wars to which you refer, just as it seems likely one or two from other parties have also protested.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby, ID must be making a reference to that left wing commi type Ron Paul and his equally left wing son for their fervent anti-defense and anti-war mantra. |
|
|
|
|
|
No, when people like me say, "...the left...," we are talking about people like President Obama.
For example, in this morning's news, it was reported that President Obama said, "Private equity is bad for America."
Now I know some of you are going to argue that this is a statement against big evil corporations who have built up a supply of cash and refuse to use it to hand out pay raises and hire more people.
But the way I interpret this is that because I have built up equity and am paying absolutely no interest to any lender what so ever, President Obama stated outright that I am bad for America.
Since I'm not participating as much as I could be in helping to prop up the irresponsible spending of our government, I am bad for America.
I don't like this.
It's not me who is bad for America, it's irresponsible spending by those in Washington who are bad for America.
(Don't make me explain what role interest plays in the money supply. Do your own homework.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Guy, did Obama say that all private equity is bad for America -- I think not, but lacking the source and original statement I can't be sure -- it sounds a bit Fauxish though.
I agree that irresponsible spending is well, irresponsible. Let us work toward figuring out what is irresponsible and what is not -- but let us not be in the slightest partisan about this. I think that is the rub..
As to you and 'the left' -- well move far enough to the right and the Republican Senator from Massachusetts is clearly on 'the left'. Move far enough to the left and Senator Reid might be 'on the right'.
On a 1 to 10 scale left to right, I'd place myself at about 3 and you at about 8. ID appears to be a 10 and xclusive might be a 2. So to ID, YOU might be 'left' and xclusive I might be 'right'. Then again, the US as a whole seems to be between 6 and 7 and Obama between 3 and 4. Romney was a 5 when Governor of Massachusetts, but in order to win the Teapublican nomination he's moved to 8 or 9 (except on fiscal matters -- his proposals are as deficit heavy as any good 'lefty'. |
|
|
|
|
Guy, did Obama say that all private equity is bad for America -- I think not, but lacking the source and original statement I can't be sure -- it sounds a bit Fauxish though.
I agree that irresponsible spending is well, irresponsible. Let us work toward figuring out what is irresponsible and what is not -- but let us not be in the slightest partisan about this. I think that is the rub..
As to you and 'the left' -- well move far enough to the right and the Republican Senator from Massachusetts is clearly on 'the left'. Move far enough to the left and Senator Reid might be 'on the right'.
On a 1 to 10 scale left to right, I'd place myself at about 3 and you at about 8. ID appears to be a 10 and xclusive might be a 2. So to ID, YOU might be 'left' and xclusive I might be 'right'. Then again, the US as a whole seems to be between 6 and 7 and Obama between 3 and 4. Romney was a 5 when Governor of Massachusetts, but in order to win the Teapublican nomination he's moved to 8 or 9 (except on fiscal matters -- his proposals are as deficit heavy as any good 'lefty'.
Well, that's your opinion.
My opinion is the US as a whole seems to be about 3.5 and dropping fast. |
|
|
