Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:56 AM
28 online now:
edge, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,003 Year: 9,039/19,786 Month: 1,461/2,119 Week: 221/576 Day: 24/98 Hour: 8/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 166 of 218 (551812)
03-24-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Taq
03-24-2010 10:39 AM


Re: Guns
This is a case of selective enforcement. The Feds have limited manpower and they do not want to alienate the public at large which is why they have decided to focus on the big growers.

And of that, not all the "care providers" (as they are called) are operating outside the boundary of the law.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 03-24-2010 10:39 AM Taq has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 167 of 218 (551837)
03-24-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
03-23-2010 3:17 PM


No more drug raids
That's why the Feds can still arrest Californians for pot possession regardless of a prescription.

Not anymore

quote:
The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn't provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.

- Oni


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2010 2:02 PM onifre has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 168 of 218 (551846)
03-24-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by onifre
03-24-2010 1:18 PM


Re: No more drug raids
That's an executive decision to simply not enforce Federal law in States that have allowed it.

It's not a restriction of Federal law. The law still applies. If Obama isn't re-elected (or hell, even if he just changes his mind one day), we could have the DEA arresting growers in Cali once again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by onifre, posted 03-24-2010 1:18 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by onifre, posted 03-24-2010 5:06 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 169 of 218 (551855)
03-24-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rahvin
03-24-2010 2:02 PM


Re: No more drug raids
That's an executive decision to simply not enforce Federal law in States that have allowed it.

Word.

If Obama isn't re-elected (or hell, even if he just changes his mind one day), we could have the DEA arresting growers in Cali once again.

Such a waste of time and tax payer money. The fucked up thing is, these states where they have legalized it, it was legalized by tax paying voters. The voters who voted for the legalization are funding their own federal raids!

Lets face it, the only safe place to grow pot now is Farmville.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2010 2:02 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 170 of 218 (551866)
03-24-2010 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Hyroglyphx
03-24-2010 10:11 AM


bump for Hyroglyphx
Hi Hyroglyphx, welcome back from suspension land.

Just wondering if you are going to respond to Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution. (Message 110)?

It's pretty obvious to me that the definition/s of militia cannot apply to the British army, and thus that Penn and Teller were pulling a fast one.

Care to comment?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-24-2010 10:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 171 of 218 (551871)
03-24-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ICANT
03-24-2010 2:43 AM


Then why do they pass laws that the majority of the people don't want?

This may happen occasionally but the majority of the time, Congress passes legislation that the majority of people support. If you are talking about health reform, the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity and Glen Beck listeners does not constitute the majority of Americans.

Here is the latest poll: Poll: Health care plan gains favor

Actually they set it up the way they did so a king or a dictator could not take over.

I agree this was part of the reasoning for maintaining state rights.

But now we have got a Congress bought and paid for by special interests.

LOL, Republicans have as much special interests as Democrats if not more so.

Time to change that back to the way it was set up

Please elaborate.

Our founding fathers were men who believed in God

It depends on what your definition of 'God' is. Some were devout Christians (of several different denominational flavors i.e. one was a Catholic, some were Congregationalists, baptist, unitarian who didn't believe in the trinity, etc), some were enlightened theists and deists, some were agnostics and some were closet atheists.

and they set our government up according to Scriptural principals.

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.

I know you don't want to believe that but that is OK.

It matters not what I believe, it matters what is the truth.

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.

Even Thomas Jefferson expressed that the Constitution is a fluid and dynamic document and that is should be in constant change:

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, 6 Sept. 1789 writes:

. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only.

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.

But they did not do that because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Agreed. Which is why there are checks and balances. State governments balance federal government and vice versa. 3 branches of government balance and check each other. Is our system perfect? Of course not, but we do have one of the most ingeniously devised and fair governmental systems in the world, and one which is modeled by nearly every democratic country sense our founding.

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.

It is admirable that Wyoming has no deficit. Maybe it is a good economic model for the rest of the US in that regard.

However, why is it that Wyomingians have one of the lowest economic confidence scores of any state in the nation: Just curious.

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?

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.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2010 2:43 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 03-25-2010 1:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


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 responded

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

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 173 of 218 (551998)
03-25-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ICANT
03-25-2010 1:51 PM


If that poll is correct why does 55% favor repeal? Source

Ok, I am not going to battle over right-leaning vs. non-partisan independent polls. If you want to believe Rasmussen, who is clearly a right-wing conservative more power to you. Gallop polls are more credible and unbiased than Rasmussen polls IMHO.

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.

Some do and some don't. Some are more corrupt than others on both sides of the fence. One reason that I am a moderate and a registered Independent.

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.

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.

However, this is not in the US Constitution is it? No. So are you advocating amending the US Constitution to put this into place?

The problem I see with this is that it removes that US Congressional representative one step further from individual voters and thus increases the likelihood that this state legislative elected official to US Congress will not be voting as a representative for the people in the congressional district but rather for the entire State legislature, who themselves are elected representatives.

Ironically, you are actually proposing a less democratic system. A system supported by Federalists like Alexander Hamilton who wanted more power granted to the central federal government as opposed to those given by states but staunchly opposed to democratic-republicanists like Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unofficially some of the founding members of the Democratic - Republican Party.

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.

So you are advocating for a less democratic system than what is currently in place. Instead of people directly voting for people to represent them in the Federal government, you are advocating for State legislatures to do so. Wow, talk about ironic.

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.

And what principles would those be? Show me where individual rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms are mentioned in the Bible.

You stated many of these men were Christians so where did they get their principals from.

From many different sources including Greco-Roman governmental systems and other historical frameworks of government and systems of morality. You do know that Ancient Greek city states were the origin of the modern governmental system of democracy (rule by the people vice a dictator). Rome imitated and expanded on this type of government which we also copied i.e. the Roman Senate and the Tribune of the Plebes (House of Representatives). You really need to educate yourself and take some humanities and world history courses.

Christians get their principals from the Bible.

And what principles are different in Christians that is different in any other religion. You do realize that the Golden Rule is found in religious text predating the birth of of Jesus Christ.

Ancient Egyptian- The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110, 1800 BCE writes:

Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do

Hinduism- Mahabharata 5:1517 writes:

This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you

Buddhism- Udana-Varga 5:18 writes:

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Then why does each State have one vote?

Why not? So each state has a voice in whether or not to amend the Constitution. I am not arguing against the ability of states to amend the Constitution. I am all for it as long as it is done legally IAW the US Constitution.

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.

Duh, what is your point??

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.

Thanks for the correction. Again your point is what?

Let me clarify my statement. The States can change the Constitution by 3/4's of the States amending the Constitution.

Ah huh. And?

There is not anything they can not limit by amendments.

Technically agree. Disagree in principle. I would caveat this by saying "except certain inalienable rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights".

You are saying the Congress has authority that the States can not change.

But the States have not amended the Constitution to null and void the laws being created by the US Congress. That is my point. Until the states get together and ratify an amendment that strips power away from the US Congress to legislate new "Laws of the Land" they states HAVE TO abide by them unless they are deemed unconstitutional by the US Judicial System. That is my point.

If so, where do they get this authority?

I didn't say the states can't change it, I said they have to change it legally using proper channels via ratifying Constitutional amendments. That is the only way states can legally limit/expand the powers of the US Government.

The only authority the Congress has comes from the Constitution.

Agreed. And the US Constitution grants the US Congress the ability to make new legislation.

What is so hard for you to understand about this?

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.

Yes. No one is disagreeing with you on this. However, they can only do so through Constitutional Amendments, not by one state making laws which are in clear violation to US Federal laws ratified by Congress. That is not constitutional.

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.

Agreed.

All three branches of the Federal government can be put in check by 3/4's of the States by Constitutional amendment.

Agreed.

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.

Baseless accusation.

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.

Wrong, the US Constitution trumps the State Constitution. The Southern states of the Confederacy tried this during the Civil War and failed.

The States entered into the Constitution and agreed to certain rules which the Federal government has changed and others they are trying to change.

Baseless accusation.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 03-25-2010 1:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2010 2:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


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 responded

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

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 175 of 218 (552086)
03-26-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ICANT
03-26-2010 2:18 AM


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.

Ok, more power to you.

I do fear for my great grandson.

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.

I said nothing about the State constitution trumping the agreed to Constitution.

But the powers of the Federal Government are granted by the Constitution so in essence you are.

"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."

And where does the Federal government get its powers?

Any authority that is not specifically given to the Federal government in the Constitution is reserved to the States.

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.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2010 2:18 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2010 1:50 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


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 responded

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

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 177 of 218 (552093)
03-26-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
03-26-2010 1:50 PM


I beg to differ
We live in the freest nation in the world as of today.

Please define free.

Here is where I beg to differ.

But we are not as free today as we were 50 years ago.

A number of people I think would disagree. Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

quote:
It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2010 1:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 218 (552094)
03-26-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
03-13-2010 7:40 PM


A citizens' militia is no longer necessary since there are considerable police forces available to keep the equivalent of "them injuns and redcoats" away.

LOL... Who were the redcoats?


"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2010 7:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 9:56 PM Jon has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 179 of 218 (552143)
03-26-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
03-26-2010 1:50 PM


Holy Sky Cake!
But we are not as free today as we were 50 years ago.

You must be of the prefered color and gender.

What a really ignorant thing to say, ICANT.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 03-26-2010 1:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 180 of 218 (552152)
03-26-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
03-13-2010 7:40 PM


what is a militia?
Hi AZPaul3

A citizens' militia is no longer necessary since there are considerable police forces available to keep the equivalent of "them injuns and redcoats" away.

But these police forces are composed of citizens who have chosen to bear arms to enforce the laws of the land, one of the duties of the state militas spelled out in the constitution. Such police forces are also not military organizations, so they can't fall into the armed forces context.

We can consider them to be militias, in the same way we can consider the state National Guard units to be militias.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2010 7:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 10:06 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019