|
The amendment to the Constitution that turned Senators into
Congressmen-At-Large. Prior to that idiotic move they were selected by their home State governments who in turn were elected by the population. As Senators they were responsible primarily to the home State and represented that State directly while the House of Representatives represented the local areas and the citizens directly. The States at that time had effective legislative power over the federal government since their were only two Senators per State. Absent that power to check the federal government the states lost control and the wisdome of the Federalist Papers came true. Completely constitutional all the way. The second thing the federal government did to assume complete control was gather up the purse strings. Not just the obvious income tax but over time control over all financial issues, banking laws, insurance, you name it. The third point is regulatory powers over everything, no exceptions. One Senator even stated it didn't matter what state he was from, he was part of the federal government. And last that I'll mention but not finally, the ability to ignore the 10th Amendment derived from this same fundamental change AS DID the curious notion that a Supreme Court ruling is the final say so. Under the old checks and balances system no single part nor all parts of the federal government could rule within themselves or over the states. A little applied gradualism and a lot of red herrings, presto! One day you wake up and find it ain't the party of Roosevelt anymore. Not hard when there are zero checks and balances in place. "Gilligan" wrote in message nk.net... What exactly caused this? Name the legislation and I'll certainly look into it. Gilligan "Michael" wrote in message ... That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers to the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People and the States respectively. Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. The states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly inefficient historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things used to be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of the Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word state is now splled with a small 's'. Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the Federal Government to do anything? |
He was a pusher?
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Overproof" wrote in message news:9iwqd.243004$9b.190902@edtnps84... "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his book. CM |
Overproof wrote: "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his book. He wrote a book? Cheers |
"Nav" wrote in message ... Overproof wrote: "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his book. He wrote a book? I believe it was described as a definitive book .... but I think it was actually written by ghost writer CM |
More than one, and the translations are many and conflicting.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Overproof" wrote in message news:CByqd.199960$df2.130059@edtnps89... "Nav" wrote in message ... Overproof wrote: "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his book. He wrote a book? I believe it was described as a definitive book .... but I think it was actually written by ghost writer CM |
"Overproof" wrote in message news:CByqd.199960$df2.130059@edtnps89... "Nav" wrote in message ... Overproof wrote: "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his book. He wrote a book? I believe it was described as a definitive book .... but I think it was actually written by ghost writer a holy spirit writer? scout |
"Michael" wrote
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers to the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People and the States respectively. Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. .... This is only true because the federal government is a treasonous criminal. |
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:25 -0500, "Vito" wrote:
"Michael" wrote That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers to the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People and the States respectively. Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. .... This is only true because the federal government is a treasonous criminal. yep, and because after the civil war states were made aware of the consequences of opposing the government usurpation of their powers. add to that the ignorance of most of my fellow countrymen about the appropriate role of government in a constitutional republic. |
"Joe" wrote in message
om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies ...... And you think that stuff should be legal? Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think laws are going to stop it? Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? I rather give the 35K to an old person that needs it, or some cancer patient that needs it ..... Second that. And that's the half of it. The vast majority of crime is drug related - addicts robbing and killing to support their habits and dealers fighting over turf. It was the same with booze during prohibition but now whoever hears of winos mugging people for a $2 bottle of wine. Legalize drugs and addicts will still kill themselves but prolly no faster than now and they wouldn't have to rob or kill innocent people after a $500/day habit became a $5/day habit. Cop I know disagreed til the NARCs called them to a hostage situation. The mob had sent a hit man to kill a local dealer. The negotiator cut a deal and when the hitter came out a sniper shot him in the heart. Didn't stop him from blowing one cop's head off with a pump gage, turning and shooting two others legs out from under them, then turning on my buddy trying to rack another round ... but not quite making it. My buddy got to empty his partner's locker and take his effects to the man's wife and kids! We now agree - saving these people from themselves isn't worth a single dead LEO, or anybody else. That's why I want drugs legalized. |
"John Cairns" wrote
Well I would think that most believe just the taking makes it immoral, Why would you think that? IIRC most Americans (at least) have experimented with illegal drugs. |
"Scout" wrote
Everything was put here for a reason. Maybe one of the reasons is to help us enjoy life. Watch out grin. Next you'll be saying it's OK to have sex other than to produce a baby! Very unchristian! |
"Horvath" wrote
God created evil, as well as the good. Yes - but God did not want us to know the difference (Gen 2:17). Ain't that a 'beach'? He also forbid eternal life. It follows that those who proclaim this good and that evil, and offer everlasting life to those who believe their definitions are in fact tools of Satan - right? |
"Joe" wrote
Capt. Neal® wrote But, how does one define a 'victim'? Victim: Someone hurt by someones elses actions.! In Compton (So of LA) it's any man less than 6' tall and under 240# who went out without his gun (c: |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote
By definition if there is a crime there is a victim or it would not be a crime. That's not what we learned in our criminal justice classes. Crimes are any infractions of the law as it is written, victim or not. |
Dave, is this the only decision you can cite? You keep mentioning this
opinion, but no other ones. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:20:27 -0600, "Michael" said: AS DID the curious notion that a Supreme Court ruling is the final say so. Far from a "curious notion," Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is little more than a rewrite of a portion of one of Hamilton's Federalist papers. The problem is not in the principle of the case--that if there is a conflict between a statute and the Constitution the Constitution prevails. It's in the application of that principle that allowed the Court to find in the Constitution whatever the majority of the nine wise men thought was a good idea, and to "discover" rights hidden but never articulated in the "penumbra" of the text. Dave |
"Dave" wrote
Far from a "curious notion," Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is little more than a rewrite of a portion of one of Hamilton's Federalist papers. The problem is not in the principle of the case--that if there is a conflict between a statute and the Constitution the Constitution prevails. It's in the application of that principle that allowed the Court to find in the Constitution whatever the majority of the nine wise men thought was a good idea, and to "discover" rights hidden but never articulated in the "penumbra" of the text. The foundation of the country, the Declaration of Independence, predates the Constitution and emphatically states that we hold certain things to be self evident - that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. The Court didn't "discover" anything. They looked at both the Constitution and Common Law and reasonably decided that one of our inalienable rights is the right to privacy. AFAIK the court never said you have a right to have sex with a sheep, it said that the Government could not violate your privacy to catch you. |
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:13:08 -0500, "Vito" wrote:
"Dave" wrote Far from a "curious notion," Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison is little more than a rewrite of a portion of one of Hamilton's Federalist papers. The problem is not in the principle of the case--that if there is a conflict between a statute and the Constitution the Constitution prevails. It's in the application of that principle that allowed the Court to find in the Constitution whatever the majority of the nine wise men thought was a good idea, and to "discover" rights hidden but never articulated in the "penumbra" of the text. The foundation of the country, the Declaration of Independence, predates the Constitution and emphatically states that we hold certain things to be self evident - that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. The Court didn't "discover" anything. They looked at both the Constitution and Common Law and reasonably decided that one of our inalienable rights is the right to privacy. AFAIK the court never said you have a right to have sex with a sheep, it said that the Government could not violate your privacy to catch you. Where do you find federal supreme court protection for a right to privacy? There are huge numbers of areas where the government goes out of its way to violate privacy in order to enforce victimless crime laws and very rarely is this reigned in on the grounds of privacy. Some sex laws were struck down because of equal protection issues - where gays were prosecuted for something straights weren't prosecuted for. Some states have asserted on the state level a right to privacy, most notably Alaska did this in the late 70's or early 80's to say that marijuana use in the home was not the business of the state. |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:31:13 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz" said: Dave, is this the only decision you can cite? You keep mentioning this opinion, but no other ones. No, I could mention Gomillion v. Lightfoot, the Slaughterhouse cases, Ex Parte Yarbrough, Plessy v. Ferguson, Colegrove v. Green, Reynolds v. Sims, Baker v. Carr, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and many others. But except for Plessy and Miranda, they wouldn't be recognized by most people, and they wouldn't be as relevant to the topic I'm discussing. Seems to me you've been discussing the topic for a long time. Perhaps it's time to move on. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
wrote
Where do you find federal supreme court protection for a right to privacy? Do a search. Laws against birth control were overthrown circa 1965 on that basis. There are huge numbers of areas where the government goes out of its way to violate privacy in order to enforce victimless crime laws and very rarely is this reigned in on the grounds of privacy..... I agree, and I'm sorry. Trouble is the only way any court can enforce its decisions is to refuse to admit illegally obtained evidence. You would think that once the SC ruled it unconstitutional to, say, beat confessions out of people that cops and prosecutors would quit doing it but no - we have a criminal government that refuses to obey the law. Police believe it perfectly legitimate to violate your rights so long as they don't need your "confession" to convict - ie if they can find enough other evidence based on your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free. |
"Dave" wrote
Nice try, Vito, but you obviously didn't read Griswold v. Connecticut, the case in which Justice Douglass created this purported Constitutional right from whole cloth, as well as the more egregious notion that whatever the nine wise men think is a good idea today can be found hiding in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment. Should you read the case, you'll find that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the common law is cited as precedent for the decision. Thanks. I'll read it more carefully and get back. |
Horvath wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:47:36 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Yup! So is booze. It's the Devils water. Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Tobacco use should be illegal. yes and all forms of booze, And all the fat people need to have ice cream and cake illegalized. Salt should be illegal, causes to many heath problems, and sodas are making our kids fat so they should be illegal. And kids bicycles and skateboards should all be taken away, they cause more bone breaks than anything! And no one over 55 should be allowed to drive anymore. What else ? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
like the priest who dies and St Peter says to him, "you've misunderstood, He
said CELEBRATE, not celibate!" scout "Vito" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote Everything was put here for a reason. Maybe one of the reasons is to help us enjoy life. Watch out grin. Next you'll be saying it's OK to have sex other than to produce a baby! Very unchristian! |
In article ,
Joe wrote: Bull****! As long as a crack head can make several hundred to several thousands of dollars an hour he will keep selling, If he is taken off the streets another will step in. Simple getto economics 101. And if you have any kids that will tell you the truth, most will tell you that schools friends can get them any drugs they want at school. You would do better to teach your kids yourself than to fool yourself into thinking the cops are winning that one. Not only that... if crack was decriminalized or legalized (much like cigarettes), then with the money incentive gone, there would be fewer crimes for drug money. There would be a significant economic benefit, and that money could be put into programs to educate people about the dangers of drug use. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 29 Nov 2004 11:53:05 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Seems to me you've been discussing the topic for a long time. Perhaps it's time to move on. Now there's a phrase resurrected from the past. When you've got no defense, shout "it's time to move on." Didn't shout... suggested. You're starting to look foolish, so I thought it might be worth your while to change subjects. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On 29 Nov 2004 14:02:13 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap: And if you have any kids that will tell you the truth, most will tell you that schools friends can get them any drugs they want at school. You would do better to teach your kids yourself than to fool yourself into thinking the cops are winning that one. Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does. I'm 100% sure of this. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Horvath" wrote in message ... On 29 Nov 2004 14:02:13 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: And if you have any kids that will tell you the truth, most will tell you that schools friends can get them any drugs they want at school. You would do better to teach your kids yourself than to fool yourself into thinking the cops are winning that one. Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does. I'm 100% sure of this. because you don't have any kids? Scout |
On 29 Nov 2004 14:19:52 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap: Tobacco use should be illegal. yes and all forms of booze, And all the fat people need to have ice cream and cake illegalized. Salt should be illegal, causes to many heath problems, Salt is necessary to all mammals. Your human body needs 2000mg of salt each day, or you will die. Those little packets of salt in the fast-food restaurants are usually 2000mg. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
In article ,
Horvath wrote: On 29 Nov 2004 14:02:13 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: And if you have any kids that will tell you the truth, most will tell you that schools friends can get them any drugs they want at school. You would do better to teach your kids yourself than to fool yourself into thinking the cops are winning that one. Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does. I'm 100% sure of this. Hahahaa... right. Good for you. With you as the father (doubtful), how could they not do drugs? -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 29 Nov 2004 15:09:10 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Didn't shout... suggested. You're starting to look foolish, Unfortunately, Jon, you seem to be well beyond "starting" to look foolish. You're right! I learned my lesson. Now, I just look. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:18:39 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap: Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does. I'm 100% sure of this. because you don't have any kids? You win a cigar. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:04:55 -0500, "Vito" said: He also forbid eternal life. Curious what your textual support for that view is, and how it relates to "whosoever believeth in Him..." Genesis 2:17 in the original IIRC (sorry, don't have my Pentateuch at hand) but redacted out in the Christian version. However Genesis 3:22, 23 and 24 make YHWH's intent clear. Seems to me that, if A&E were forbidden to know good from evil, and got booted out of Eden to keep them from getting eternal life then any church that dispenses the forbidden knowledge and offers eternal life can only be a tool of the devil, ... if you believe in devils. |
Horvath wrote in ****
. .. On 29 Nov 2004 14:19:52 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Tobacco use should be illegal. yes and all forms of booze, And all the fat people need to have ice cream and cake illegalized. Salt should be illegal, causes to many heath problems, Salt is necessary to all mammals. Your human body needs 2000mg of salt each day, or you will die. Those little packets of salt in the fast-food restaurants are usually 2000mg. I dont give a crap. It causes health problems so we must stamp it out and make it illegal. Just like booze... a glass of red wine can be healthy. But a weak simpleton can not handle the personal responsibilty of not over doing it. Therefore we should deprive everyone for there own good. You will get natural salt in foods. Dammit lets be fair to everyone and censor them alike. No favortisim to any group that mis-uses anything. Understand? If we are going to police everyones health or morals then we should go all the way and not descriminate. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:36:45 -0500, "Vito" said: Police believe it perfectly legitimate to violate your rights so long as they don't need your "confession" to convict - ie if they can find enough other evidence based on your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free. Wrong on the law again. Ever heard of "fruit of the poisoned tree?" Oy! (look to heaven) Did I mention the law at all? I took several college courses in criminal justice. Most of my classmates were working LEOs. To a man, they believed it was OK for them to violate your rights. The only deterrent was that evidence obtained thereby would be tossed out. That belief hurt them on tests but they still believed it .... kind of like some folks on the NG (c: |
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:43 -0500, "Vito" said: ie if they can find enough other evidence based on your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free. [snip[ The only deterrent was that evidence obtained thereby would be tossed out. And you don't recognize the inconsistency between these two statements? What Vito is leaving out is the reason the police give in court for "finding" the corrabative evidence, i.e., "a confidential informant told me that the perp had four and half keys of coke in the water tank of his toilet.", see? Cheers Marty |
"Dave" wrote
"Vito" said: Curious what your textual support for that view is, and how it relates to "whosoever believeth in Him..." Genesis 2:17 in the original IIRC (sorry, don't have my Pentateuch at hand) but redacted out in the Christian version. However Genesis 3:22, 23 and 24 make YHWH's intent clear. Seems to me that, if A&E were forbidden to know good from evil, and got booted out of Eden to keep them from getting eternal life then any church that dispenses the forbidden knowledge and offers eternal life can only be a tool of the devil, ... if you believe in devils. Ah, IOW you don't bother with trying to deal with it. You simply ignore the contrary language I noted. No David I did not. I provided you the textual support for the view that YHWH forbid man eternal life (Did you read it?). How does that relate to "whosoever believeth in Him..."? Well obviously we are talking about different gods. Remember, the people who believed in YHWH, including the man we call Jesus, considered the dude who made Jesus a god (Saul) a heretic. |
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:43 -0500, "Vito" said: ie if they can find enough other evidence based on your "confession" or their illegal search they're home free. [snip[ The only deterrent was that evidence obtained thereby would be tossed out. And you don't recognize the inconsistency between these two statements? Please to understand that *I* recognize it (I got 'A's), it is the police and other LEOs who do not. They fervently believe they can badger a confession out of you then based on you're admissions find enough evidence to convict without ever mentioning your confession in court - and sometimes (most times?) it works. Shouldn't, but it does. Most Americans would have a hissy fit if they knew how our system really worked. |
"Dave" wrote
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:01:43 -0500, "Vito" said: Should you read the case, you'll find that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the common law is cited as precedent for the decision. Thanks. I'll read it more carefully and get back. Having done so I'll quote part of that decision "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system." The whole is at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../griswold.html Yes. I've read it several times. As I said the first time, they said nothing about either the Declaration of Independence or common law. You are right. The decision doesn't mention DoI or common law so you have a right to assume that neither were considered no matter how unlikely such an assumption might be. There goes the old VMAT2 gene again. I suppose it's a matter of semantics but the court "created" nothing. Not at all a matter of semantics. The Constitution walled off specific areas from State interference, and left the protection of other "rights" to the States. Douglas created out of whole cloth, with no textual or historical support, an entirely new area that was to be walled of from the States. Calling this so-called "right" old doesn't mean that its protection was assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution does not assign protection of our rights to fedgov! Fear of that erroneous interpretation is why many didn't want any Bill of Rights. The Constitution itself simply assigns certain powers to the federal government. ( see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/ for discussion). If a power is not so granted then it is reserved to the states and the people. The BoR was only approved after mucho haggling and the addition of Ammendments 9 & 10: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Thus the absents of of any mention of privacy "shall not be construed to deny or disparage" that right. |
Monte Cristo please.
Scout "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:18:39 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Nonsense. My kids don't do drugs, and don't know anyone who does. I'm 100% sure of this. because you don't have any kids? You win a cigar. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
In article , Vito
wrote: "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies ...... And you think that stuff should be legal? Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think laws are going to stop it? Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? I rather give the 35K to an old person that needs it, or some cancer patient that needs it ..... Second that. And that's the half of it. The vast majority of crime is drug related - addicts robbing and killing to support their habits and dealers fighting over turf. It was the same with booze during prohibition but now whoever hears of winos mugging people for a $2 bottle of wine. Legalize drugs and addicts will still kill themselves but prolly no faster than now and they wouldn't have to rob or kill innocent people after a $500/day habit became a $5/day habit. Cop I know disagreed til the NARCs called them to a hostage situation. The mob had sent a hit man to kill a local dealer. The negotiator cut a deal and when the hitter came out a sniper shot him in the heart. Didn't stop him from blowing one cop's head off with a pump gage, turning and shooting two others legs out from under them, then turning on my buddy trying to rack another round ... but not quite making it. Sniper didn't use enough gun. Agree WRT legalising drugs, BTW. Let the idiots kill themselves off cheaply & quietly. PDW |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com