Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 218 (551109)
03-21-2010 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate
03-21-2010 1:07 AM


Re: Guns
Hi DevilsAdvocate,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Yes, but it varies from state to state. I have no problem with differing state regulations as long as any loopholes are closed. Federal regulation eliminates this problem. However, I know many have a heart ache with federal oversight vice that of the states. To me it makes no difference as long as the end result is the same.
I can't find the amendment to the constitution that the states radified giving the federal government the authority to regulate anything about my gun ownership.
If you know where it is maybe you could point it out to me.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-21-2010 1:07 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 03-21-2010 5:11 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-21-2010 9:23 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 9:22 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 113 of 218 (551364)
03-22-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate
03-21-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Guns
Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Not all federal or state laws and regulations require a constitutional amendment. No one is taking away the right to bear arms guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. Therefore no constitutional amendment is needed. Amendments are only required when the US Constitution itself or other Constitutional Amendments needs to be modified.
I take it then there is no amendment to the constitution that invalidates the second amendment.
If there is no amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states no one has any authority to restrict the provisions of the second amendment.
Which the Supreme Court has upheld.
To change the provision of the second amendment the Constitution would have to be amended and the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-21-2010 9:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 4:44 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 135 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-22-2010 9:36 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 114 of 218 (551366)
03-22-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Theodoric
03-22-2010 9:22 AM


Re: Guns
Hi Theo,
Theodoric writes:
The same can be said about murder. There are federal laws against murder. Do you think they are invalid?
Is there an amendment to the Constitution that says I have the right to commit murder?
If not your argument is a strawman.
Theodoric writes:
The Washington D.C. ban was a local law, not federal. The law in Chicago area is a local law, not federal. So what is it? Are gun rights a federal or local issue?
The question is a Constitutional one.
The Constitution gives individuals the right to have, and bear arms.
The only way that can be infringed is for the Constitution to be amended voiding the second amendment. The only ones who has that authority is the states and it takes 3/4's of the states to amend the Constitution.
The federal government can not change the Constitution.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 9:22 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 3:22 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 137 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-22-2010 9:51 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 117 of 218 (551406)
03-22-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Guns
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not any and all regulation is an infringenment, no?
According to the Constitution any attempted control would be an infrigenment unless the Constitution is amended, with the amendment being ratified by 3/4's of the states.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:59 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 122 of 218 (551421)
03-22-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 4:44 PM


Re: Guns
Hi AZ,
Only if the states are willing to accept such restrictions.
Everybody in Washington get their authority from the States.
3/4's of the States can amend the constitution.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : To correct 5/4 to 3/4 as pointed out by lyx2no

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 4:44 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2010 5:55 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 6:07 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 126 of 218 (551432)
03-22-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 4:59 PM


Re: Guns
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't believe that's true. Can you support your statement? Where does the Consitution say that?
Here is a copy of article V of the Constitution which explains how the Constitution can be amended. You will notice that 3/4's of the States can amend the Constitution.
quote:
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
You mentioned the National Firearms act of 1934 which the Constitunationally of has never been determined, that I can find.
Just because Congress has passed certain laws does not mean that they are Constitutional.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 6:38 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 131 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:48 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 128 of 218 (551437)
03-22-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rahvin
03-22-2010 6:07 PM


Re: Guns
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
Congress retains the right to regulate interstate commerce...
Who granted Congress that power?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 6:07 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2010 6:35 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:51 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 7:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 134 of 218 (551474)
03-22-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 6:51 PM


Re: Guns
Hi Paul,
ASPaul3 writes:
We the people.
[abe] What lyx2no said.
I know that there are certain rights granted by Article I to the Congress. I personally believe they have oversteped those granted rights many times, in fact enough times they feel they can do anything they desire regardless of the peoples wishes.
The fact remains the States are the ones who make amendments to the Constitution. The Congress can make as many amendments as they desire but they are of none effect unless 3/4's of the States ratify them.
But the States can amendment the Constitution without input from Congress.
So actually we the people delegate authority to the federal government through the States.
In Message 131
AZPaul3 writes:
These center around the registration requirements versus the Fifth Amendment. However, if the Act (as amended) violated the Second Amendment, the Court would have invalidated the entire act. Since in Freed the amended registration requirements were upheld the court saw no conflict with either the Second or the Fifth Amendments.
I had read that one and several others. But none of them claimed the law was unconstitutional only their rights under the 5th amendment.
Why would the court consider a case that was not filed or argued?
I don't know about you guys but I am learning a lot reading all the stuff about our Constitution.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 9:38 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 138 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:54 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 139 by petrophysics1, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 147 of 218 (551687)
03-23-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate
03-23-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Guns
Hi DA,
DevilsAdocate writes:
Are you saying that you will refuse to collect social security when the time comes?
Why would anybody that has been forced for 50 years to pay into a fund that they were told would be their reitirement fund not collect their money plus interest.
Had I been allowed to take the same money that I was forced to pay into the Social Security Fund and invest it I would not have to worry about having enough to last me until I die. I was self employed and had to pay the employer part as well as the employee part.
It is no fault of mine that our government has spent all the monies taken in and at the present owe the Social Security Trust fund 2.7 trillion dollars. Social Security is not an entitlement it is funded by payroll deductions.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
federal aid
There is no such thing as federal aid.
All monies the federal government gives away is taken from
"WE THE PEOPLE" It is called redistrubition of the wealth which is marxism. Have you ever noticed how much the government takes out of every dollar they redistribute?
Our federal government is out of control and it is time the States got together and clipped their wings.
It is time they had to balance their budget each year.
It is time our Senators and Representives become appointed representatives of their respective States rather than the special interest that put money into campaigns to get elected. Seems our founding fathers had that one right.
In Message 138 you said:
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Basically there are two ways of amending the US Constitution,
The process can start in different ways.
There is only one way the Constitution can be amended. The proposed amendment has to be RATIFIED BY 3/4'S OF THE STATES.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Yes, but this has never taken place.
Well maybe it is time the States did and began to say "NO YOU CAN'T". Do anything that we don't want done. All it takes is 38 states.
As far as your suggestion of working for change I already do.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 9:56 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 148 of 218 (551690)
03-23-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
03-23-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Guns
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
Federal law supersedes State law.
A lot of people think that.
The fact is that 38 States can change any federal law by amending the Constitution.
Everybody in Washington are the employees of the States of the United States. That includes the President and all his men, Congress and all their helpers, and the Supreme Court. Literally everyone who draws a Federal Paycheck.
That means they could fire the entire bunch if they so desired or they can limit everything that they can do.
They have let Washington bully them around and it is time to put a stop to it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 3:17 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 7:55 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 150 by AZPaul3, posted 03-23-2010 7:56 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 9:23 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 158 of 218 (551751)
03-24-2010 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate
03-23-2010 10:23 PM


Hi DA,
DevilsAvocate writes:
In other words the US Congress expresses the will of the STATES,
Then why do they pass laws that the majority of the people don't want?
DevilsAdvocate writes:
I think the framers of the US Consitution had in mind to keep the state governmental system as a set of checks and balances and to ensure that as the country grew our government could grow to be able to handle a larger number of people.
Actually they set it up the way they did so a king or a dictator could not take over. But now we have got a Congress bought and paid for by special interests. Time to change that back to the way it was set up.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
They also were progressives (what you call liberal) for the time and proposed new, radical agendas advocating human rights never before put into action.
Our founding fathers were men who believed in God and they set our government up according to Scriptural principals. I know you don't want to believe that but that is OK.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
They knew that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not the end of the legistlation and enforecement of inalienable and equal human rights
This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about our rights and where they come from. He also commented on what to do when the government becomes destructive of the peoples rights.
quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
I heard several Congressmen say they gave us our rights this past week.
If our founding fathers thought that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution needed improvement why did they make it so hard to amend the Constitution?
Why didn't they just set it up where 50% +1 could change it? Or better yet set it up where the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court could change . But they did not do that because absolute power corrupts absolutely.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
BTW, why do you think state government is so much better than federal government, as you so repititiously keep point out.
Just for starters my State has no income tax. We do have property tax and sales tax.
My State does not run a deficit. The budget has to be balanced.
If the State income is predicted to be short of the budget cuts have to be made until the outgo equals the income.
But if you read my messages you will notice that I am talking about States rights. The Federal government has usurped powers that were not given to them by the States. It is time the States fixed the problem. They do have the authority to do so.
Will they? I have no idea if there is enough people who believe in our Constitution that will stand up and be counted. I do believe we will find out in the months ahead.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 10:23 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 03-24-2010 9:49 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 162 by dwise1, posted 03-24-2010 10:14 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 171 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-24-2010 10:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 172 of 218 (551960)
03-25-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by DevilsAdvocate
03-24-2010 10:05 PM


Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Here is the latest poll: Poll: Health care plan gains favor
If that poll is correct why does 55% favor repeal? Source
DevilsAdvocate writes:
LOL, Republicans have as much special interests as Democrats if not more so.
I said Congress and did not leave anybody out. These guys think they have been elected to vote their conscience rather than the will of the people.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Time to change that back to the way it was set up
Please elaborate.
According to the Federalist papers the original representatives were appointed by the State legislatures.
If each State legislature appointed the representatives that went to Washington to express the view of the States they would not be there to vote their conscience. If they did they could be replaced on the spot by the State legislature.
That process would eliminate the need for vast sums of money for election campaigns. Which would eliminate any pressure anyone could put of our representatives. The only pressure would be that put on them to vote the will of the State.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Please show me in the US Constitution were it mentions God, Jesus or the Bible. Surely you can show me at least one mention of one of these three terms.
Why would the words God, Jesus, or the Bible have to be mentioned in the Constitution for the Constitution to be set up on Scriptural principals.
You stated many of these men were Christians so where did they get their principals from?
Christians get their principals from the Bible.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
If our founding fathers thought that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution needed improvement why did they make it so hard to amend the Constitution?
The intent was so that the Constitution would express the will of the majority of Americans.
Then why does each State have one vote?
It was set up so the will of the States would be done that is the reason they are given the power to ratify amendments to the Constitution.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Why didn't they just set it up where 50% +1 could change it?
Because 2/3 (67%) gives a more accurate consensus of the will of the people than 51% which could just be the result of a statistical flux.
It takes 3/4's of the States ratifying an amendment to amend the Constitution. 2/3's of the States can call for a Constitutional Convention but it takes 3/4's to ratify any proposed amendment.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
They do have the authority to do so.
They do, using legal means i.e. ratification of Constitutional Amendments, not usurping the legislative authority of the US Congress.. Just curious.
Let me clarify my statement. The States can change the Constitution by 3/4's of the States amending the Constitution.
There is not anything they can not limit by amendments.
If I understand your statement: "not usurping the legislative authority of the US Congress.. Just curious"
You are saying the Congress has authority that the States can not change.
If so, where do they get this authority?
The only authority the Congress has comes from the Constitution.
If the only authority the Congress has comes from the Constitution and the States can change the Constitution they can change any power Congress, the President or the Supreme Court has.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Agreed. Which is why there are checks and balances. State governments balance federal government and vice versa.
The Federal government is set up with three branches of government. The Executive, the judicial and the legislative branches. They are to keep check on each other.
All three branches of the Federal government can be put in check by 3/4's of the States by Constitutional amendment.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
But if you read my messages you will notice that I am talking about States rights. The Federal government has usurped powers that were not given to them by the States.
In what way?
The topic of this thread Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment is about POWER. The international community on arms control is about disarming citizens. Which Obama has agreed to work with.
To be able to accomplish this the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has to be made of non effect. So the executive branch of government is trying to get backing from the judicial branch to enforce rules they have set up using the commerce clause.
The people who want to change the Constitution in Washington know they can not do it all at once so they keep picking around the edges feeling that if they turn the heat up a little at the time the States won't notice and take action to correct the problem.
Anytime the Federal government tells the States they have to do something that is against the Constitution of the State they are usurping authority of that State.
The States entered into the Constitution and agreed to certain rules which the Federal government has changed and others they are trying to change.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-24-2010 10:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2010 5:51 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 174 of 218 (552038)
03-26-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate
03-25-2010 5:51 PM


Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
According to the Federalist papers the original representatives were appointed by the State legislatures.
That is nice, but the federalist papers is not the Constitution and is not recognized as the Law of the Land, though they do give a historical context of the Age of Enlightenment philosophy and way of thinking that many of the Framers of the Constitution used to help create and ratify the Constitution.
However, it is interesting to note that some of the writings in the Federalist papers were rather controversial i.e. the opposition to the Bill of Rights. In fact there were a set of papers called the Anti-Federalist papers supported by famous figures such as Thomas Jefferson, that were countered many of the ideas bantered about in the Federalist papers.
So you see, ICANT, this stark black and white, wrong and right, good and evil, of the U.S. Constitution is a figment of your imagination. The U.S. Constitution is a work created by fallible men, though all with good intentions.
I am learning as I go so I messed up a bit and must straighten it out here.
Representatives have always been elected by the people.
Senators were not elected until 1913.
quote:
ARTICLE I
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Article I Section 3 was changed in 1913 by:
quote:
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I am glad to see you agree that 3/4's of the States can amend the Constitution.
That is all that I have been saying.
If the States feel the 2nd amendment needs more clarification all they have to do is amend it.
If they want to put the Senators in a position where no one would have control of them but their respective States they can.
If they want to limit the spending of the Federal government they can.
If they want to require a balanced budget they can.
That would be hard to accomplish but could be done. Many of the States have to balance the budget every year.
So you see I am only advocating that if the States want to restore the Federal government to what it was created to be they can by 3/4's simply fixing a few things in the Constitution. But since I am 70 none of it will matter much to me. I do fear for my great grandson.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Wrong, the US Constitution trumps the State Constitution.
I said nothing about the State constitution trumping the agreed to Constitution.
I said: "Anytime the Federal government tells the States they have to do something that is against the Constitution of the State they are usurping authority of that State."
Any authority that is not specifically given to the Federal government in the Constitution is reserved to the States.
The rest of your rant I will ignore as they don't belong here.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2010 5:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-26-2010 12:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 176 of 218 (552092)
03-26-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by DevilsAdvocate
03-26-2010 12:05 PM


Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Agreed. Does the US Congress not have the AUTHORITY granted by the US Constitution to create new laws binding by all states?
This is a yes or no question.
This is not a yes or no question without qualifications.
The Congress can make laws that are binding on all States as long as the authority to make that law is given in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is to determine when the Congress passes laws that are unconstitutional.
But we now have a problem because many on the Supreme Court are not Constitutalist. They are prescedent believers. That is prescedent trumps the Constitution.
Because of that we have gotten to the point the Federal government is out of control, as there are no checks and balances.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
And here we go with the fear mongering. We live in one of the most free societies in the world in probably the one with the most individual freedoms in human history. I really am tired of people bitching.
We live in the freest nation in the world as of today.
But we are not as free today as we were 50 years ago.
My Concern is with the path we are on we can not remain a free people as we are being made slaves to the Federal government.
The government wants to tell me what I can eat, what is good for me, what is bad for me and are trying to pass laws to make me obey them. Now they have added that everybody must have health insurance or be fined if they don't. How long will it be before they want to tell me how many times I can go to the bathroom in a day? And what kind of toilet paper I must use? Because we have to protect the ecology.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-26-2010 12:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Theodoric, posted 03-26-2010 1:55 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 179 by onifre, posted 03-26-2010 8:06 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 197 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-28-2010 7:40 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 203 of 218 (552513)
03-29-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by DevilsAdvocate
03-28-2010 7:40 AM


Hi Da,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
I am sorry ICANT, but that is about the most idiotic thing I have heard you say. You think McCarthyism was good? How about the Jim Crow laws? Segregation was awesome wasn't it! Yeah, lets go back to the 50s when WASP males ran the country and women were kept in the kitchen and blacks in the ghetto and serving our food. What a joyous time.
Well I am sorry but I don't believe all the propaganda that is put out by our government and the media.
I don't know what part of America you lived in, in the 40's and 50's but I would dare say you were not a twinkle in the eye of your parents.
After the war was over things were tough in the area I lived in. But we all survived without big brother supplying our needs. The government did not supply our food, healthcare, or anything we needed to survive. We worked for everything we had.
I lived on a farm and worked on many farms. There was black and white working side by side. Each got paid the same amount of money. We went to the same Churches. We visited in each others homes in other words we were friends.
In fact in the 50's I employed a couple of the ladies that had washed my clothes when I was a little boy. They helped take care of my kids. Later I started doing construction work and moved all over the state of Florida. When I went home on the weekends I had to visit those ladies so they could see the boys and know how they were doing. If I missed them they were very upset and felt I did not love them anymore. Many of my uncles and aunts could care less if I visited them.
In our area we knew nothing of racial problems until it broke on the national scene.
The government did not tell us what to eat or what to buy. They sure did not tell us if we did not buy a certain product they would fine us.
"McCarthyism." Do you believe there were no people in the US in the 50's that had communist or Marxists beliefs? Those and their offspring are the one promoting those ideas in America today.
"Jim Crow laws." Weren't these laws put in effect in the 1800's not in the 1900's?
"Segregation was awesome wasn't it!" You don't think we have segregation today. Listen to the statements of Rev. Wright.
"women were kept in the kitchen." What is wrong with the woman in a marriage staying home and taking care of the home and children? What is wrong with the man being a man and providing a living for his family?
"blacks in the ghetto." Do you believe there are no getto's today?
Do you believe that those who have worked hard all there life are responsible for those white and black living in poverty?
Do you believe the government should take their hard earned money and give it to those that set around and never try to better themselves?
All mankind is created with equal opportunities.
All men are not created equal if we were we would all be as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
When was the last time you got arrested for eating a big mac?
If I ever eat a big mac they might. I don't eat food prepared by people other than my wife, or by myself. When we have food at Church I eat what we prepare.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Following precedents is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it does not clearly violate the Constitution.
Unless the first ruleing violated the Constitution.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Can you give me an example where you think the US SC has done this?
Interpertation of amendment XIV, and relavant rulings, which told the States they could not pass certain laws.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Do you really think the US Constitution, infinitesimally small compared with modern legislation, can adequately address ALL the hypothetical legal, economic, cultural, religious, health, welfare, and other concerns of a complex government system with three branches, 50 states, 2.7 million federal employees, tens of thousand of federal offices and a population of over 350 million people. I think not.
If the Constitution is not sufficient to address a problem there is a way to fix it. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to fix the Constitution. They only have the right to examine what is written down and determine if something matches what is written not what they think is written.
They could suggest to the President or Congress that the Constitution needed amending. The Congress could then suggest amendments to fix any problem. Then if 3/4's of the States ratified the amendments they would become law.
The problem is they want to do things that the States would not ratify in a Constitutional amendment. So they interpet the Constitution rather than follow the Constitution.
That brings us to the Second Amendment and the Constitution.
They try to figure out all kinds of ways to control gun ownership without asking the States for aproval which they would not get. So the government trys to use the commerce law to get their authority which flys in the face of a statement that the government can not restrict the citizens of owning and bearing arms.
I think our forefathers intended for the citizens and States to have any arms that the federal government could posess in case they tried to put the people under a rule like they came out from under in England.
The citizens would be at a disadvantage if all they had was pickup trucks, shotguns and other small arms to go against an organized army that had tanks and bombs.
You say that could never happen in America. Are you sure it could not happen?
Remember absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you don't think so visit Cuba. Or visit a gentleman that lives in Miami who was second in command to Raul in the 80's and 90's in Cuba. I could introduce you if you desired. He was there when Castro took over in the late 50's and saw what absolute power could do.
If you look at Cuba you will see those in power have anything they desire. There are drug stores that visitors can buy aspirn in. But the local population are not allowed to enter them must less buy anything no matter how much money they have. There is a big fellow about 225 lbs over 6' tall standing at the entrance to make sure the locals do not come in the stores. They have to shop in the stores desginated for them to shop in.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-28-2010 7:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by onifre, posted 03-29-2010 5:57 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 211 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-29-2010 10:36 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024