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


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to regulate
drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide for it). If
the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the "arms" mentioned
in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols and automatic rifles
because the framers did not know of such things and could not possibly have
intended them to be included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
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.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to
regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide
for it). If the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the
"arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols
and automatic rifles because the framers did not know of such things and
could not possibly have intended them to be included in the definition of
"arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US. Drug sales are
interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled by the Fed's. The
Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts that can
rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the Fed's over
Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their authority. Actually
people should have been tried for murder and gone to jail for other crimes
in that case. Calling out the active duty military, should have had
everyone who authorized it unemployed. If we want to change the
constitution, there are procedures. Been used to pass 16 admendments in
addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:19:50 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote:

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


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to regulate
drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide for it). If
the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the "arms" mentioned
in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols and automatic rifles
because the framers did not know of such things and could not possibly have
intended them to be included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken

Have you read the Constitution in the last 130 or so years? It clearly
says that slavery is illegal in the US or its territories. It clearly
says that the right to vote cannot be denied due to gender or race and
even the original Constitution clearly says that the federal
government can regulate INTER-STATE drug sales. Hell, even in those
days there were "arms" that were more powerful than flintlocks. They
had cannon, they had mortors, they had bombs and they even had
rudimentary torpedos. All of which were regularly owned by private
individuals. They understood that the the word "arms" meant more than
muskets, rifles and pistols. Pick up a copy of the Constitution at
your local book store tomorrow as we celebrate Constitution Day and
give it a quick glance. You appear to be the reason Bobby Byrd passed
a law requiring the teaching of the Constitution each year on
September 17 (or the day before or after if it falls on a weekend as
it does this year) in every federally publicly funded school and
federal agency.

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

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

What are "Xtians", Peter? I've never heard of that group. Is it anything
like Xlims, or Xists? I've never heard of them, either. If, on the other
hand, you're merely attempting to make some oh-so-clever commentary through
contrived word usage, please clarify. It has been many, many years since
I've left junior high school, and I don't interpret juvenile innuendo very
well anymore. If you have something to say, then say it.

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.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.

"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.

No.

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

No.

3) Women and blacks should not be able to vote.

Everyone except women :)

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

If the claim is correct, yes.


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.

The contstitution has a process for change and it is the amendment process
that is driven by the people through their state legislatures and the
national legislature. The judicial branch was never intended to amend the
constitution all on its own.

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

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
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.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must
be interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have
slavery if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly
prohibit it), states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because
the constitution does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has
no right to regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not
expressly provide for it). If the intent of the framers is so important,
the surely the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not include
repeating pistols and automatic rifles because the framers did not know
of such things and could not possibly have intended them to be included
in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US.

You are corerct - my mistake.

Drug sales are interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled by
the Fed's.

Interpretation! Where are drugs mentioned in the constitution? Or why can't
drug companies sell horse pee within a state?

The Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts
that can rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the
Fed's over Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their
authority. Actually people should have been tried for murder and gone to
jail for other crimes in that case.

Oh please. A law enforcement officer knocks on a door to serve a legal
warrant and is shot. Feeble-minded religious nutcases armed wth machine guns
set their own compound on fire. This has been investigated to death and only
the most fervid conspiracy theory nitwits still whine about it.

Calling out the active duty military, should have had everyone who
authorized it unemployed.

What? That makes no sense at all. Lay off the gin, will ya g?

If we want to change the constitution, there are procedures. Been used to
pass 16 admendments in addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

Yes. And your point is....?

--
Peter Aitken

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message

I will ask you to answer this question: why are so many people, mostly
Xtians, so anxious to push their beliefs down other people's throats? Why
can't they go about their religion in whatever way they choose without
requiring the gov't to get involved?

What are "Xtians", Peter? I've never heard of that group. Is it anything
like Xlims, or Xists? I've never heard of them, either. If, on the
other hand, you're merely attempting to make some oh-so-clever commentary
through contrived word usage, please clarify. It has been many, many
years since I've left junior high school, and I don't interpret juvenile
innuendo very well anymore. If you have something to say, then say it.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the Xtians
is shorthand for Christians. Well, maybe you are the exception. Do you know
what Xmas means?


--
Peter Aitken

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

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.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.



You comment is astoundingly ignorant. No offense meant, but if you really
think that then you are in a really bad way.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

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.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.



You comment is astoundingly ignorant. No offense meant, but if you really
think that then you are in a really bad way.

There really aint a whole lot in article III, is there?