On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:37:03 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted
"separation of church and state" that exists today

Ah, the old original intent BS. The Constitution was never meant to be a
static document, see Article V. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state
religions. If this makes you unhappy, you are free to once again amend
the Constitution, but fortunately, I doubt you will find the votes.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds
of years.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html



--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html



Liberal judges are trying to reshape the Constitution every day.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation
of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it
was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html



Liberal judges are trying to reshape the Constitution every day.

Exactly.......which is why the liebrals adhere to the "living constitution"
idea.......it allows them to bypass the only legitamate process for changing
the constitution.........where most of their goals would fail miserably.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


Do you believe the following?

1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish.
2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the
constitution was written - flintlocks.
3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote.
4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer.

These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you
believe them? Do you think they are consistent with American values? If so
then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not
then you need to re-examine your position.


--
Peter Aitken

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.


They needed the 3rd leg of government, the Supreme Court, to make sure the
other 2 branches did not take liberties with the interpretation of the
Constitution.

None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


Do you believe the following?

1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish.
2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the
constitution was written - flintlocks.
3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote.
4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer.

These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you
believe them? Do you think they are consistent with American values? If so
then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not
then you need to re-examine your position.


--
Peter Aitken

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:11:13 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote:

SNIPPO

The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


Do you believe the following?

1) States should be able to have slavery if they wish.

Of course not. That is because we followed the original Constitution
and ratified an Amendment outlawing slavery throughout the United
States.

2) Gun owners should be limited to the types of guns available when the
constitution was written - flintlocks.

Of course not. According to the Constitution we should be allowed to
keep and bear "arms". There are no limits to the term "arms" and since
the intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves against the
government, the citizen was allowed to keep and bear anything
available. There was plenty of private ownership of cannon and mortars
at the time the Amendment was written - from where do you think the
arms for fighting the revolution came? If the Constitution had been
properly applied all along we would have passed an amendment to allow
arms control long ago when people started owning Browning 50 cals and
B-17s.
3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote.

Again, we followed the wise rules of the framers and modified the
Constitution via Amendment as societal norms changed. We didn't just
let 9 unelected dictators make either of those decisions.

4) Companies can sell horse pee and claim it cures cancer.

They do it all the time. Don't you get the "natural male enhancement"
emails? Besides the Constitution specifically allows the Feds to
manage inter-state commerce and if your state is too weak to regulate
intra-state commerce then you should be buying horse-pee.

These are the consequences of your position on the constitution. Do you
believe them?

see above
Do you think they are consistent with American values?

My answers are, yes.

If so
then you are at least consistent although a wretched human being. If not
then you need to re-examine your position.

The purpose of the Constitution was to establish rules and limits that
had reached the point of consensus in the society at that time. They
understood that these items should not change at the whim of the
majority, but should freely change when a new consensus was reached.
Therefore they provided two separate ways that the people and the
states could reach a new consensus and we have done so 26 times (17
times if you count the Bill of Rights only once instead of as 10
Amendments). Thus the process works! If only we let it. Why can't we
let it?

When the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities could use
Eminent Domain to take private property for the benefit of other
private purposes, lots of people cried and whined like there was no
recourse. The SC didn't say states and localities HAD to take
property, just that the US Constitution didn't make it illegal. Each
state can still outlaw it in their own Constitution. Each state can
pass laws making it illegal for localities to do it. We could all get
together and pass an Amendment to the US Constitution if we are so
****ed off about it (and if we have reached the required consensus
about it). The US Amendment could either simply outlaw the Feds from
doing it or it could outlaw all levels of government from doing it. We
are not helpless sheep that need five old people to dictate to us and
make up laws because they think they are the right things to do. (For
the math challeged it takes 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices to
dictate new laws as they see fit). They should apply the Constitution
and allow us to change it when, and if, we decide it needs it.

The Other Dave Hall
Dave Hall

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." -- G.B. Shaw