NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly for the same reason that others ignore the first part of the first.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress. So when the ACLU et al, comes into town and says there should be no nativity scene or the like on public property they are ignoring the first part of the amendment, which says CONGRESS, not government.

Funnily enough, this same kind of selective reasoning is their justification for not supporting the second amendment.

Clearly for the same reason that others ignore the first part of the first.



You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress. So when the ACLU et al, comes into town and says there should be no nativity scene or the like on public property they are ignoring the first part of the amendment, which says CONGRESS, not government.

Funnily enough, this same kind of selective reasoning is their justification for not supporting the second amendment.

I just got done explaining on my own post. See Amendment 14, Section 1. Both CONGRESS and the STATES are bound to it.

Clearly for the same reason that others ignore the first part of the first.



You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress. So when the ACLU et al, comes into town and says there should be no nativity scene or the like on public property they are ignoring the first part of the amendment, which says CONGRESS, not government.

Funnily enough, this same kind of selective reasoning is their justification for not supporting the second amendment.

It's an implication thing.

The constitution is ignored in dozens of ways, constantly, and has little to do with our modern government.

First part of the first amendment.

First part of the second amendment is "A well-regulated militia."

I just looked at the 2nd Amendment again...
There's nothing about Congress ...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not to mention that fact that the legislature really are the only ones capable of making laws. So no laws may be made with respect to any religion. That means that you can not suppress it or promote it. So no government funding. Since only Congress can allocate funds. And, the 2nd Amendment is a little outdated--it was put in place so that we could have a militia, when the Framers didn't want a standing army because they thought it would the President way too much power. And they were so f**king right.

The first part of the second amendment is called a justification clause. It gives the reason for the second part. The first amendment has no such part. It is just the rights clause alone.

I just got done explaining on my own post. See Amendment 14, Section 1. Both CONGRESS and the STATES are bound to it.

You mean this bit.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How does puting a nativity scene on public land violate that.

Congress didn't do it, and what privileges and immunities are being abriged.

That's right, none.

Hello people.

CONGRESS shall make no laws.

Nothing to do with the states.

Not to mention that fact that the legislature really are the only ones capable of making laws. So no laws may be made with respect to any religion. That means that you can not suppress it or promote it. So no government funding. Since only Congress can allocate funds. And, the 2nd Amendment is a little outdated--it was put in place so that we could have a militia, when the Framers didn't want a standing army because they thought it would the President way too much power. And they were so f**king right.
Noo, it was put there so that the general public would have access to military quality "small arms" i.e. anything less than an artillery piece. It is meant to protect a populace against the tyranny of the government or the majority, whichever comes first. It had little to do with a standing army.

Hello people.

CONGRESS shall make no laws.

Nothing to do with the states.
States have congresses too, or did you overlook that little fact. By congress it means any public governing body. On the other hand, private corps. should be able to make as many rules as they want concerning such.

Clearly for the same reason that others ignore the first part of the first.



You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress. So when the ACLU et al, comes into town and says there should be no nativity scene or the like on public property they are ignoring the first part of the amendment, which says CONGRESS, not government.

Funnily enough, this same kind of selective reasoning is their justification for not supporting the second amendment.I usually love a good troll, but this is rediculous.

Just in case no one told you, congress is the part of the government that makes the laws. So when they say 'congress shall pass no law...' it pretty much covers all the bases because no one else can make laws!

Stick to the nativity scenes in front of courthouses etc. That's been explained before but it always makes for a good troll.

Get it right kid or we kick you out of the union.

You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress.
Because at the time it was written, the government was our congress.
It wasn't so lamely split up into all of these other unnecessary offices. It was the big cheese.
I'm a member of the ACLU, but I have to admit, they've taken up some stupid arguments (the nativity, defending NAMBLA).

So the goverment shouldn't make ANY law regarding religion? Then let them put a nativity scene up around Christmas without having to hire lawyers to defend that right. I want to see a Buddha there soon on our Hollidays, since I'm Buddhist.
Wouldn't that be great?

You mean this bit.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How does puting a nativity scene on public land violate that.

Congress didn't do it, and what privileges and immunities are being abriged.

That's right, none.

No... The SUPREME COURT has ruled it otherwise.
As Justice Hugo Black said, "The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First, with all the force it brings to bear against the Federal Government, against the States." That would include the Establishment Clause. :rolleyes:

It's an implication thing.

The constitution is ignored in dozens of ways, constantly, and has little to do with our modern government.

The constitution is the BASIS for U.S. government! How can it have little to do with it?
If the government has no set of rules governing operation, the U.S. government is exactly what I've been saying it is - An elected Fascism w/term limits.

States have congresses too, or did you overlook that little fact. By congress it means any public governing body. On the other hand, private corps. should be able to make as many rules as they want concerning such.

Am I then free to define militia in a similar fashion?

If so I want my automatic weapon now.

Am I then free to define militia in a similar fashion?

If so I want my automatic weapon now.
Are you a state legislature? I don't think so.

Not to mention that fact that the legislature really are the only ones capable of making laws. So no laws may be made with respect to any religion. That means that you can not suppress it or promote it. So no government funding.


I have to agree with you. Don't supress, don't promote.

I usually love a good troll, but this is rediculous.

Just in case no one told you, congress is the part of the government that makes the laws. So when they say 'congress shall pass no law...' it pretty much covers all the bases because no one else can make laws!

Stick to the nativity scenes in front of courthouses etc. That's been explained before but it always makes for a good troll.

Get it right kid or we kick you out of the union.


Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government. Not the states, or counties.

Being a government of limited powers, such restricitions have no place on local government, and thus my town hall can have a nativity scene.

Are you a state legislature? I don't think so.

What does that have to do with it?

Well, even more important than "Congress" is the word "establishment". If you want to know what that word means, just look at the only other English-speaking country at the time the Constitution was written which just happened to have an "established" religion (i.e. the Church of England). Clearly, that's precisely what Madison meant. And that meant things like the monarch being the head (or "protector" or whatever) of the state church, the government appointing all bishops (even now!) etc. THAT'S what Congress is actually prohibited of doing, not merely putting up Nativity scenes here and there. If we believe that the First Amendment bans any public expression of religion, then by the same logic the Second Amendment requires everyone to carry weapons at all times - I mean, you need about the same leap of logic in both cases.

Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government. Not the states, or counties.

Being a government of limited powers, such restricitions have no place on local government, and thus my town hall can have a nativity scene.And you're telling me this, why?

I'm telling you to refine your trolling skills. You're giving trolls a bad name.

And you're telling me this, why?

I'm telling you to refine your trolling skills. You're giving trolls a bad name.

because when you said that "no-one else can make laws" it was wrong.:rolleyes:

Am I then free to define militia in a similar fashion?

If so I want my automatic weapon now.

Automatic weapons have never been banned in US history. It just requires a Class-3 License (Which are very expensive) and a Full-Auto Rifle (Which are very expensive and kind of hard to find).

What does that have to do with it?
Christ, all you do is make short responses to intelligent posts, Lacadaemon. How old are you, 8? Can't you think at least a little before you start posting? For me? For God if you're religious? For my f**king sanity and little remaining cynical faith in humanity, you obnoxious prick?

To actually contribute, you are not able to define anything. Only your representatives in government, elected legislators and executor, and the unelected judges and justices. Elect representatives to office who will advocate automatic weapon decriminalisation. Sorry about the hateful and vulgar language used in this post, I just had to vent a little.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It isn't that complex. It says Congress shall make no laws because Congress is the only governmental institution empowered with the right to make law. They didn't need to say the whole government because only one part of it can actually make law. The executive cannot make law, it can only enforce them and create directives within the boundary of law. The judicial court only decides what is and what is not legal given the laws on the books. If the laws change, obviously the questions of legality change. Finally, the Supreme Court (and this is something that everyone seems to have a problem with) has the power to decide if a law is legal...in other words, does Congress overstep it's bounds by making a law? If no, then the law is kosher. If yes, then the law is overturned by the Court. If Congress wants to make a law to give itself the power to counter the court, then the Constitution must be amended. So, take Roe v. Wade. In a nutshell, it says that Congress can't make a law banning abortion because it would be a fundamental infringement on a woman's privacy. To ban it would legally constitute a kind of unreasonable search and seizure and is therefore unconstitutional. It's a grey area, yes. If Congress REALLY wanted to ban it, they'd have to amend the Constitution regarding such laws (which nobody really wants to do) or make an amendment explicitly banning it, which muddies up the unreasonable search and seizure thing and sets a pretty crappy precedent in regards to the powers of government. Untill then, all the pro-lifers will have to duke it out in court like everybody else and hope the Supreme Court overturns its decision.

Either that or opt for better sex education and universal access to birth control...that's really the only way to insure that abortions are kept to cases of rape, incest, or dire ramifications for the life of the mother...but that's a different debate.

And what the Hell does the ACLU have to do with anything? They're a non-governmental non-profit organization. If the don't like a nativity scene on public property, then they can challenge it in court...and that's all they can do. If they don't like the first court's decision, they can go up a level, and so on. But then, that's why we have courts, for the citizens of the US to bring up their gripes about when they think someone's overstepping their legal rights. Contrary to popular belief, you really can't do whatever the Hell you want if you're a government official, and the Framers certainly believed that you shouldn't be able to.

I hope this clarifies some things.

Christ, all you do is make short responses to intelligent posts, Lacadaemon. How old are you, 8? Can't you think at least a little before you start posting? For me? For God if you're religious? For my f**king sanity and little remaining cynical faith in humanity, you obnoxious prick?

To actually contribute, you are not able to define anything. Only your representatives in government, elected legislators and executor, and the unelected judges and justices. Elect representatives to office who will advocate automatic weapon decriminalisation. Sorry about the hateful and vulgar language used in this post, I just had to vent a little.

THANK YOU!!!!
I really didn't want to be the one responsible for flaming.

Christ, all you do is make short responses to intelligent posts, Lacadaemon. How old are you, 8? Can't you think at least a little before you start posting? For me? For God if you're religious? For my f**king sanity and little remaining cynical faith in humanity, you obnoxious prick?

To actually contribute, you are not able to define anything. Only your representatives in government, elected legislators and executor, and the unelected judges and justices. Elect representatives to office who will advocate automatic weapon decriminalisation. Sorry about the hateful and vulgar language used in this post, I just had to vent a little.

Thanks for saving me the typing time man.

Am I then free to define militia in a similar fashion?

If so I want my automatic weapon now.
By the meaning of the second amendment you should be able to have one, especially considering how few murders with guns an extremely lax gun control state has if all citizens are allowed weapons. Israel is strict but most people still have handguns. The few terrorists that have tried to use full machine guns in Israel against the populace have been shot to pieces by civvies with handguns.

Christ, all you do is make short responses to intelligent posts, Lacadaemon. How old are you, 8? Can't you think at least a little before you start posting? For me? For God if you're religious? For my f**king sanity and little remaining cynical faith in humanity, you obnoxious prick?

To actually contribute, you are not able to define anything. Only your representatives in government, elected legislators and executor, and the unelected judges and justices. Elect representatives to office who will advocate automatic weapon decriminalisation. Sorry about the hateful and vulgar language used in this post, I just had to vent a little.

Do you find the expression "Congress" confusing.

Last I looked that only applied to the federal government.

It's an implication thing.

The constitution is ignored in dozens of ways, constantly, and has little to do with our modern government.
And this, my friends, is the crux of the issue. The general populace seems to have become fed up with the "interpretive" approach to the US Constitution. The majority who voted to re-elect President Bush may have factored this into their thinking. Most people aren't lawyers and would prefer to retain the "clear language" of the original text. Just a thought.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It isn't that complex. It says Congress shall make no laws because Congress is the only governmental institution empowered with the right to make law. They didn't need to say the whole government because only one part of it can actually make law. The executive cannot make law, it can only enforce them and create directives within the boundary of law. The judicial court only decides what is and what is not legal given the laws on the books. If the laws change, obviously the questions of legality change. Finally, the Supreme Court (and this is something that everyone seems to have a problem with) has the power to decide if a law is legal...in other words, does Congress overstep it's bounds by making a law? If no, then the law is kosher. If yes, then the law is overturned by the Court. If Congress wants to make a law to give itself the power to counter the court, then the Constitution must be amended. So, take Roe v. Wade. In a nutshell, it says that Congress can't make a law banning abortion because it would be a fundamental infringement on a woman's privacy. To ban it would legally constitute a kind of unreasonable search and seizure and is therefore unconstitutional. It's a grey area, yes. If Congress REALLY wanted to ban it, they'd have to amend the Constitution regarding such laws (which nobody really wants to do) or make an amendment explicitly banning it, which muddies up the unreasonable search and seizure thing and sets a pretty crappy precedent in regards to the powers of government. Untill then, all the pro-lifers will have to duke it out in court like everybody else and hope the Supreme Court overturns its decision.

Either that or opt for better sex education and universal access to birth control...that's really the only way to insure that abortions are kept to cases of rape, incest, or dire ramifications for the life of the mother...but that's a different debate.

And what the Hell does the ACLU have to do with anything? They're a non-governmental non-profit organization. If the don't like a nativity scene on public property, then they can challenge it in court...and that's all they can do. If they don't like the first court's decision, they can go up a level, and so on. But then, that's why we have courts, for the citizens of the US to bring up their gripes about when they think someone's overstepping their legal rights. Contrary to popular belief, you really can't do whatever the Hell you want if you're a government official, and the Framers certainly believed that you shouldn't be able to.

I hope this clarifies some things.


Long post. Interesting, but still only one Congress, and it's federal not state.

So what stops a state assembly, burgess, legislature or county government from putting a nativity scene on state or county land. After all it's not congress.

And the ACLU part is that they seem to find the first part of the second amendment so compelling that they take no position on the meaning of it, yet they will cheerfully ignore the Congress part of the first.

because when you said that "no-one else can make laws" it was wrong.:rolleyes:Uh, the constitution covers the federal government. Do I have to spell out the rest?

Limme give you a hint son, this one line rebutal stuff is not good trolling. It only makes those arguing with you think you're an idiot unless the line is truly memorable or witty. Save it up. Post at least a paragraph. Use logical arguements, whether you believe them or not is irrelevant, they should be rudamentally defendable. Think it out first. Try to anticipate the responses. The true joy of trolling can only be achieved when you suck 'em into a 'gotcha'.

Oh, if you're not trolling and really a moron, nevermind. (See, that's a witty one-liner)

Clearly for the same reason that others ignore the first part of the first.



You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress. So when the ACLU et al, comes into town and says there should be no nativity scene or the like on public property they are ignoring the first part of the amendment, which says CONGRESS, not government.

Funnily enough, this same kind of selective reasoning is their justification for not supporting the second amendment.

By this, if Dubya passes an executive order tomorrow forbidding people, the media, etc. from speaking ill of the government, there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it because only Congress is bound by the First Amendment. Maybe there are restrictions on executive orders that are lesser known, but Dubya could practically become a dictator with this little loophole.

By this, if Dubya passes an executive order tomorrow forbidding people, the media, etc. from speaking ill of the government, there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it because only Congress is bound by the First Amendment. Maybe there are restrictions on executive orders that are lesser known, but Dubya could practically become a dictator with this little loophole.
He could, because FDR, as good as he was, gave way too much power to the President. But if Bush did that, everyone would get very, very pissed and very, very bad things would happen.

Clearly for the same reason that others ignore the first part of the first.



You see it says, congress. Not government. Congress. So when the ACLU et al, comes into town and says there should be no nativity scene or the like on public property they are ignoring the first part of the amendment, which says CONGRESS, not government.

Funnily enough, this same kind of selective reasoning is their justification for not supporting the second amendment.

You overlook a major thing with out system. That is the way it is supposed to work. The ACLU, Tom, Dick or Harry can challenge anything they think is not right. Be it right or wrong they should do it. I for one would be concerned if there are guidelines as to what may be challenged.

As to the establishment clause. It is not simply a question of laws. You have to look at the primary intent. The Goverment of the United States(be it Federal, State, or Local) is supposed to be Relgious Neutral! The founders knew full well the affects of the Religious wars of Europe. They did not want that here.

There is nothing wrong with a Nativity scene. It becomes a problem when the govement says it can only be displayed. If all relgions can display something on the same property then the ACLU will not say much about it.

That was an option proposed to that dumbass who snuck the 10 commandments statue in the rotunda of the courthouse. He was offered a bargan where the other Relgions and a display of Hamurabi be included. He refused and those lost his job and the statue removed.

Again:

If all Relgions are encouraged to set up displays. There is no problem.

If only Christian symbols are allowed, there is a problem.

If only Muslim symbols are allowed, there is a problem.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Uh, the constitution covers the federal government. Do I have to spell out the rest?

Limme give you a hint son, this one line rebutal stuff is not good trolling. It only makes those arguing with you think you're an idiot unless the line is truly memorable or witty. Save it up. Post at least a paragraph. Use logical arguements, whether you believe them or not is irrelevant, they should be rudamentally defendable. Think it out first. Try to anticipate the responses. The true joy of trolling can only be achieved when you suck 'em into a 'gotcha'.

Oh, if you're not trolling and really a moron, nevermind. (See, that's a witty one-liner)

Well for someone giving advice, you should least try and understand what the bill of rights is about first. :rolleyes:

Or, in fact how it works. :rolleyes:

Good post otherwise though.

And this, my friends, is the crux of the issue. The general populace seems to have become fed up with the "interpretive" approach to the US Constitution. The majority who voted to re-elect President Bush may have factored this into their thinking. Most people aren't lawyers and would prefer to retain the "clear language" of the original text. Just a thought.

Ahhh so only the Red States understand the Consitution?

Ahh ok.....

You overlook a major thing with out system. That is the way it is supposed to work. The ACLU, Tom, Dick or Harry can challenge anything they think is not right. Be it right or wrong they should do it. I for one would be concerned if there are guidelines as to what may be challenged.

As to the establishment clause. It is not simply a question of laws. You have to look at the primary intent. The Goverment of the United States(be it Federal, State, or Local) is supposed to be Relgious Neutral! The founders knew full well the affects of the Religious wars of Europe. They did not want that here.

There is nothing wrong with a Nativity scene. It becomes a problem when the govement says it can only be displayed. If all relgions can display something on the same property then the ACLU will not say much about it.

That was an option proposed to that dumbass who snuck the 10 commandments statue in the rotunda of the courthouse. He was offered a bargan where the other Relgions and a display of Hamurabi be included. He refused and those lost his job and the statue removed.

Again:

If all Relgions are encouraged to set up displays. There is no problem.

If only Christian symbols are allowed, there is a problem.

If only Muslim symbols are allowed, there is a problem.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.


Massachusetts had an established church when it ratified the constitution and bill of rights.

Ahhh so only the Red States understand the Consitution?

Ahh ok.....
Of course, silly! How can you expect...liberals and activist judges, those disgusting mongrels, to understand the Constitution? And while we're at it, how can anyone possibly think that times and the needs and wants of the people ever change? the Constitution was written down quote clearly, and never gives room for change. OOPS, TOO LATE!

He could, because FDR, as good as he was, gave way too much power to the President. But if Bush did that, everyone would get very, very pissed and very, very bad things would happen.

A lot of people would be pretty ticked at Bush, but there would be plenty of hardcore Bush supporters who would insist that it's for the best, and they can finally make everyone else agree with them, so he won't make everyone hate him. Had he done it in 2003...well, he still would have been re-elected, since people would have heard nothing but pro-Bush propaganda on TV.

Massachusetts had an established church when it ratified the constitution and bill of rights.

And it was basically nullified by signing it.

I am curious though. Which documents are you refering to?

And it was basically nullified by signing it.

I am curious though. Which documents are you refering to?

here (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm)

Part the first, article three.

here (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm)

Part the first, article three.

Hmm just from perusal, they seemed to have taken the route of "correcting" themselves. For example, the governor had to swear he was a christian and an amendment threw that out.

It was probably not an issue since it predated the Revolution and Madison was a shrewed man to not get hung up on something like that.

Thanks for the link! More reading to do! ;)

Uh, the constitution covers the federal government. Do I have to spell out the rest?

Limme give you a hint son, this one line rebutal stuff is not good trolling. It only makes those arguing with you think you're an idiot unless the line is truly memorable or witty. Save it up. Post at least a paragraph. Use logical arguements, whether you believe them or not is irrelevant, they should be rudamentally defendable. Think it out first. Try to anticipate the responses. The true joy of trolling can only be achieved when you suck 'em into a 'gotcha'.

Oh, if you're not trolling and really a moron, nevermind. (See, that's a witty one-liner)

1. Please highlight the "witty" things that are obscured by thick fog.

2. Long paragraphs prove that you cannot get to the point; they do not prove your point.

Hmm just from perusal, they seemed to have taken the route of "correcting" themselves. For example, the governor had to swear he was a christian and an amendment threw that out.

It was probably not an issue since it predated the Revolution and Madison was a shrewed man to not get hung up on something like that.

Thanks for the link! More reading to do! ;)

Well not when the Us constitution was signed though.

But it has been amended since then. Nevertheless, it would have been illegal for mass to ratify a constitution and bill of rights that impeded its own powers at the time. Thus the first amendment means that the federal legislature cannot enforce a religion on the people, leaving the states free to do as they please. (Which is why marriage is a state issue today).

1. Please highlight the "witty" things that are obscured by thick fog.

2. Long paragraphs prove that you cannot get to the point; they do not prove your point.1. I don't think it's the fog that's 'thick'

2. You must have pulled 'long' out of your @$$ because I didn't say it. I simply said paragraph.

Hello people.

CONGRESS shall make no laws.

Nothing to do with the states.



You are simply wrong.

No other way to put it, sorry.

1. I don't think it's the fog that's 'thick'

2. You must have pulled 'long' out of your @$$ because I didn't say it. I simply said paragraph.


Haha. You are about to get the all time biggest slap down.

You are simply wrong.

No other way to put it, sorry.


Read the rest of the thread, and then explain why.

1. I don't think it's the fog that's 'thick'

2. You must have pulled 'long' out of your @$$ because I didn't say it. I simply said paragraph.

1. At least you did not waste words with that non-answer.

2. Butt, lack of meaning is still a waste of OUR time (if not yours).

Read the rest of the thread, and then explain why.

Precedent, precedent, precedent!

Precedent, precedent, precedent!

What precendent?

Where did SCOTUS define congress to mean anything other than the federal legislature.

What precendent?

Where did SCOTUS define congress to mean anything other than the federal legislature.


Hibben v. Smith, also Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co

You can find a lengthy explanation at findlaw.

Particularly at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/03.html


The court found essentially that a lesser governing body than congress could not make laws which, if made by the congress would violate the fifth amendment.

The justification was equal protection under law and due process, as per the fourteenth amendment.

Implicitly, this extended the protections granted to the population by the bill of rights against acts of congress to all acts of government.

Hibben v. Smith, also Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co

I only know hibben, and that is a states rights case. Can you give me the verbage that you are thinking of.

You can find a lengthy explanation at findlaw.

Particularly at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/03.html


The court found essentially that a lesser governing body than congress could not make laws which, if made by the congress would violate the fifth amendment.

The justification was equal protection under law and due process, as per the fourteenth amendment.

Implicitly, this extended the protections granted to the population by the bill of rights against acts of congress to all acts of government.


Hmm, I think you are confusing commerce clause power with limits on police power.

However, for the sake of good relations and comity, let me fully read up, and I will address your references.

Automatic weapons have never been banned in US history. It just requires a Class-3 License (Which are very expensive) and a Full-Auto Rifle (Which are very expensive and kind of hard to find).


There is no such thing as a "Class-3 license." There is only a Federal Firearma License, which is what you must have to commercially transfer firearma, i.e. be a dealer. What you are thinking of is a class 3 transfer, which was instituted with the National Firearms Act of 1934 (thanks to Al Capone) and which defines a "machine gun" and "destructive device." A class 3 transfer (really a NFA Title 2 transfer) is a one-time $200 fee everytime the weapon changes hands. The person buying the weapon must endure a full FBI background check, among other things.

And yes, automatic weapons are regulated. Any automatic weapon must have been manufactured and originally registered before the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986, meaning that you will only be able to obtain pre-1986 weapons.



On the real topic of this thread, did anyone ever consider that the state's constitutions themselves may address the establishment issue?

Of course, silly! How can you expect...liberals and activist judges, those disgusting mongrels, to understand the Constitution? And while we're at it, how can anyone possibly think that times and the needs and wants of the people ever change? the Constitution was written down quote clearly, and never gives room for change. OOPS, TOO LATE!

And unlike the Libs, the conservatives give a shit about the constitution? HA!
Both suck. If you want a living constitution, become a Libertarian.
Neither of the other parties are looking out for the constitution or (even less), the Bill of Rights.
Wake Up!

And unlike the Libs, the conservatives give a shit about the constitution? HA!
Both suck. If you want a living constitution, become a Libertarian.
Neither of the other parties are looking out for the constitution or (even less), the Bill of Rights.
Wake Up!


Wooowwwwww.

The Liberterians are free from corruption? They would never do anything for self gain or increase power!

Damn we should outlaw all parties and make everyone a liberterian.

Nahhh. I don't like the idea of privitizing the police.....

Because at the time it was written, the government was our congress.
It wasn't so lamely split up into all of these other unnecessary offices. It was the big cheese.
I'm a member of the ACLU, but I have to admit, they've taken up some stupid arguments (the nativity, defending NAMBLA).

So the goverment shouldn't make ANY law regarding religion? Then let them put a nativity scene up around Christmas without having to hire lawyers to defend that right. I want to see a Buddha there soon on our Hollidays, since I'm Buddhist.
Wouldn't that be great?

1. As a "member of the ACLU", please ask your fight-pickers to read the TENTH AMENDMENT.

2. It is only 28 words long, and VERY CLEARLY SAYS (not implies), that the ONLY powers of the FEDERAL government are SPECIFICALLY "delegated" in this-here-short-and-sweet-original U.S. CONSTITUTION. [I wasted 32 words; they said more (and they said it more-better), with 28 words.]

3. The title of this thread mentions the Second Amendment; but the Tenth Amendment settles most of your arguments.

1. As a "member of the ACLU", please ask your fight-pickers to read the TENTH AMENDMENT.

2. It is only 28 words long, and VERY CLEARLY SAYS (not implies), that the ONLY powers of the FEDERAL government are SPECIFICALLY "delegated" in this-here-short-and-sweet-original U.S. CONSTITUTION. [I wasted 32 words; they said more (and they said it more-better), with 28 words.]

3. The title of this thread mentions the Second Amendment; but the Tenth Amendment settles most of your arguments.

Scary day.

I agree with you. :confused:

And unlike the Libs, the conservatives give a shit about the constitution? HA!
Both suck. If you want a living constitution, become a Libertarian.
Neither of the other parties are looking out for the constitution or (even less), the Bill of Rights.
Wake Up!

1. Libertarians have their own unique way of mis-reading the specific, and carefully chosen, words in The U.S. Constitution.

2. Libertarians control the ACLU. I understand the "U". I object to their attempt distort the meaning of the "A", the "C", and the "L". Likewise for the LillyLiverTarians.

3. But thanks. Every time the Libertarians get involved in an election, they draw votes AWAY from the party that they would prefer (and they never win, like Nader and Perot).

Scary day.

I agree with you. :confused:

You are hurting both of our reputations. (Thanks, anyway.)

1. Libertarians have their own unique way of mis-reading the specific, and carefully chosen, words in The U.S. Constitution.

2. Libertarians control the ACLU. I understand the "U". I object to their attempt distort the meaning of the "A", the "C", and the "L". Likewise for the LillyLiverTarians.

3. But thanks. Every time the Libertarians get involved in an election, they draw votes AWAY from the party that they would prefer (and they never win, like Nader and Perot).

1. That is officer thinking sir.

2. How did you become so eloquent.

3. Please tell me.

4. I noticed that you scared that "Trolling motors" right off.

Wooowwwwww.

The Liberterians are free from corruption? They would never do anything for self gain or increase power!

Damn we should outlaw all parties and make everyone a liberterian.

Nahhh. I don't like the idea of privitizing the police.....
What would be the difference if they were corrupt? The government would be so small it wouldn't really matter, and that's the point.

And the privitization of the Police force would bring us officers who actally :

* Stop shooting unarmed people, as that would benefit society as a whole.

* Unfailingly follow the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments for once.

* Try policing themselves as fervently as they all love policing the rest of us.

* End unconstitutional roadblocks and checkpoints (which would be all of them).

* End profiling, racial and otherwise. When cops look for a problem somewhere, they'll probably find one, even if they have to invent it.

* End entrapment, traffic-related, vice-related and otherwise.

* End special holiday revenue-raising binges. For example, here in Arkansas, the state police have a citation orgy every Memorial Day and Labor Day weekend. It's like martial law for three days at a time before returning to a normal police state status.

* Drop the authoritarian "I'm a god" attitude. It doesn't scare anybody. It just makes officers' jobs even harder by alienating the public.

* Tear down the Blue Wall of Silence. Unchecked power is dangerous, and police power in this country is increasingly militant and completely out of control.

* Stop patrolling parking lots ("fishing expeditions") unless they are asked by the establishment's owner or a crime has been reported.

* Truly "serve and protect" by standing up for the Constitution they have been sworn to uphold.

I guess the current state of affairs is exactly what you deserve if all of this really sounds like a bad idea.

You are hurting both of our reputations. (Thanks, anyway.)

Sorry, but you are making a lot of sense tonight.

(and they never win, like Nader and Perot).

Silly man! Don't you know there is a conspiracy to keep them down!

It would never be the fact that many of them(at least the ones I have spoken too), will basically tell you that you are an ignorant lazy dumbass if you disagree with them.

1. Libertarians have their own unique way of mis-reading the specific, and carefully chosen, words in The U.S. Constitution.

2. Libertarians control the ACLU. I understand the "U". I object to their attempt distort the meaning of the "A", the "C", and the "L". Likewise for the LillyLiverTarians.

3. But thanks. Every time the Libertarians get involved in an election, they draw votes AWAY from the party that they would prefer (and they never win, like Nader and Perot).
1.Instead of making a gross generalization, you should provide examples that might back up so bold a claim.
2.Was this a question? An answer? I fail to see it's validity.
3.Christ, what makes you think we would've preferred these assholes? You assume too much.

1. That is officer thinking sir.

2. How did you become so eloquent.

3. Please tell me.

4. I noticed that you scared that "Trolling motors" right off.

1. Thank you Sir.

2. Become?

3. The answer is S.A.M. (short and meaningful).

4. I messed up. I wanted to tell him to get back in his cave, or under his bridge, depending on his troll-evolutionary-origin.

I guess the current state of affairs is exactly what you deserve if all of this really sounds like a bad idea.

Wow that is really scary that you belive all corruption will go away with the privatization of the police.

Wow really scary.....

Wow that is really scary that you belive all corruption will go away with the privatization of the police.

Wow really scary.....
All corruption? No, I never came close to saying this. That would imply that everyone is "good", which they aren't.
I find it scary that you couldn't see that I was mentioning a better system, not a utopian paradise.
Reread... s l o w l y this time.

1. Thank you Sir.

2. Become?

3. The answer is S.A.M. (short and meaningful).

4. I messed up. I wanted to tell him to get back in his cave, or under his bridge, depending on his troll-evolutionary-origin.


Touche, Sir.

But I am disappointed that trolling didn't stick around for some smack down.

1.Instead of making a gross generalization, you should provide examples that might back up so bold a claim.
2.Was this a question? An answer? I fail to see it's validity.
3.Christ, what makes you think we would've preferred these assholes? You assume too much.

1. Facts speak for themselves. Examples lead to more picky arguments.

2. See what I mean?

3. Good example of your mis-reading. When Libertarians oppose a candidate, they draw votes away from HIS OPPONENT. So, HIS OPPONENT GETS LESS VOTES AND LOSES (and Libertarians always lose anyway). Is that clear enough?

4. Four "examples", for the needy. Bush won. Kerry lost. Libertarians lost. Nader lost.

1. Facts speak for themselves. Examples lead to more picky arguments.

2. See what I mean?

3. Good example of your mis-reading. When Libertarians oppose a candidate, they draw votes away from HIS OPPONENT. So, HIS OPPONENT GETS LESS VOTES AND LOSES (and Libertarians always lose anyway). Is that clear enough?

4. Four "examples", for the needy. Bush won. Kerry lost. Libertarians lost. Nader lost.
1. I think that's called "passive-aggression". Whatever works for you. I'll just use your level of reductive reasoning here: Whatever party you belong to, they suck. Now wasn't that better?
2.No, I don't.
3.Not at all. From whom are we removing votes from? Why would we care? If our interests lie within our own party, we wouldn't be taking them away from an asshole like Kerry. I didn't support him in the least.

Let's get quippy!
:headbang:

1. I think that's called "passive-aggression". Whatever works for you. I'll just use your level of reductive reasoning here: Whatever party you belong to, they suck. Now wasn't that better?
2.No, I don't.
3.Not at all. From whom are we removing votes from? Why would we care? If our interests lie within our own party, we wouldn't be taking them away from an asshole like Kerry. I didn't support him in the least.

Let's get quippy!
:headbang:

1. Do you imagine yourself as a PsychoAnalyst? or a Lawyer? or just a Verbose PsychoBabbler?

2. If you think "truthful examples" are helpful, go listen to what they (and you) say in court. By the way, why do witnesses have to take an oath, BUT LAWYERS NEVER DO?

3. Your Libertarian Party and Nader's Please-Let-Me-Play-With-The-Big-Boys Party helped Kerry lose. Thanks.

4. Quippy??? Is that a headbanging/torture device?

What would be the difference if they were corrupt? The government would be so small it wouldn't really matter, and that's the point.

And the privitization of the Police force would bring us officers who actally :

* Stop shooting unarmed people, as that would benefit society as a whole.

* Unfailingly follow the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments for once.

* Try policing themselves as fervently as they all love policing the rest of us.

* End unconstitutional roadblocks and checkpoints (which would be all of them).

* End profiling, racial and otherwise. When cops look for a problem somewhere, they'll probably find one, even if they have to invent it.

* End entrapment, traffic-related, vice-related and otherwise.

* End special holiday revenue-raising binges. For example, here in Arkansas, the state police have a citation orgy every Memorial Day and Labor Day weekend. It's like martial law for three days at a time before returning to a normal police state status.

* Drop the authoritarian "I'm a god" attitude. It doesn't scare anybody. It just makes officers' jobs even harder by alienating the public.

* Tear down the Blue Wall of Silence. Unchecked power is dangerous, and police power in this country is increasingly militant and completely out of control.

* Stop patrolling parking lots ("fishing expeditions") unless they are asked by the establishment's owner or a crime has been reported.

* Truly "serve and protect" by standing up for the Constitution they have been sworn to uphold.

I guess the current state of affairs is exactly what you deserve if all of this really sounds like a bad idea.

Ummm...let's see here.

Why would a private police force refrain from shooting unarmed people any more than a state-run police force would? The state can just as easily fire their cop asses as a corporation would.

And what incentive would a corporate police force have to follow the Constitution, a document that really wouldn't apply too much to them?

I assure you that no private police force would police itself any more than any other corporation would. Why should they? They care more about profit than about justice.

Which is also a point against these "checkpoints" going away. If anything, a private police force would be more invasive and have even more incentives to bust people for violations they can bill for.

Private cops will look for problems to invent too, you know. Their motive for doing so will be different, but it will be there.

The bottom line is, I sure as hell don't want to be dealt with by some private cop who just wants my money. Cops who work for cities and states may not be a whole lot better, but I would feel much more comfortable knowing that money might not be the first thing on a cop's mind.

All corruption? No, I never came close to saying this. That would imply that everyone is "good", which they aren't.
I find it scary that you couldn't see that I was mentioning a better system, not a utopian paradise.
Reread... s l o w l y this time.

:rolleyes:

Oh a better system? Everybody always has a better system. All your system would do is replace some forms of abuse with others.

If a police force was corrupt how would you correct it in a privitized setup?

A cop is basically an expense, guess what business does not like. How many times have we heard about training getting cut in bad times?

Now curiosity.

How would you fund such a force and who would run it.

Ummm...let's see here.

Why would a private police force refrain from shooting unarmed people any more than a state-run police force would? The state can just as easily fire their cop asses as a corporation would.

And what incentive would a corporate police force have to follow the Constitution, a document that really wouldn't apply too much to them?

I assure you that no private police force would police itself any more than any other corporation would. Why should they? They care more about profit than about justice.

Which is also a point against these "checkpoints" going away. If anything, a private police force would be more invasive and have even more incentives to bust people for violations they can bill for.

Private cops will look for problems to invent too, you know. Their motive for doing so will be different, but it will be there.

The bottom line is, I sure as hell don't want to be dealt with by some private cop who just wants my money. Cops who work for cities and states may not be a whole lot better, but I would feel much more comfortable knowing that money might not be the first thing on a cop's mind.

A current "EXAMPLE" is Red-Light-Camera tickets. They were all thrown out (and already-paid fines were refunded, in San Diego at least). The "legal" reason was: The Corporations that had contracts to install and operate the cameras, got bonus-pay for more tickets. {Some of them even SHORTENED THE YELLOW-LIGHT TIME!!!}

Touche, Sir.

But I am disappointed that trolling didn't stick around for some smack down.

I also messed up with "Eichman". I meant to say "Quippy, hmmm, rhymes with Whippy", etc.

I also messed up with "Eichman". I meant to say "Quippy, hmmm, rhymes with Whippy", etc.

Eichman left (to party with the Trolls?) I guess it's two-to-zero. We won by 2 points. Vollyball game is over.

Eichman left (to party with the Trolls?) I guess it's two-to-zero. We won by 2 points. Vollyball game is over.

It's sad, but true, that very few people can stand up to you around here.

Frankly, they need a boot up the ass to help them grow a spine.

Still you do good work. You are a valuable member of the team.

It's sad, but true, that very few people can stand up to you around here.

Frankly, they need a boot up the ass to help them grow a spine.

Still you do good work. You are a valuable member of the team.

Who is on the team?
How do you get on the team?
Who throws you off the team?
How do you start your own, new team? etc.

Who is on the team?
How do you get on the team?
Who throws you off the team?
How do you start your own, new team? etc.

You are on the team.

You get on by standing up to idiots.

You get thrown off when the rest of us see you fail.

You just joined mine. I don't know about others.

It's sad, but true, that very few people can stand up to you around here.

Frankly, they need a boot up the ass to help them grow a spine.

Still you do good work. You are a valuable member of the team.

I assume that you and Laca are on the good team. GunNight, Deac.

You are on the team.

You get on by standing up to idiots.

You get thrown off when the rest of us see you fail.

You just joined mine. I don't know about others.

Let's KEEP ROLLIN'.

Night BL.

Ummmm, some people Do have to eat. What are you celebrating this late? That some people are tired? Lame. And who's the Deacon guy who's always sucking your dick? :fluffle:
I think we've highjacked this thread, so I've created another in the forum for privitization discussion.

Ummmm, some people Do have to eat. What are you celebrating this late? That some people are tired? Lame. And who's the Deacon guy who's always sucking your dick? :fluffle:
I think we've highjacked this thread, so I've created another in the forum for privitization discussion.


Flame, Flame, Flame,

Make your point or be silent.

Ummmm, some people Do have to eat. What are you celebrating this late? That some people are tired? Lame. And who's the Deacon guy who's always sucking your dick? :fluffle:
I think we've highjacked this thread, so I've created another in the forum for privitization discussion.

We're changing you name to "SnEichen". Your "points" are not impressive to the LADIES on this site. "EXAMPLE" = your language sticks (and reflects your micro-point). Genetically, you may need help from a FUTILITY doctor.

Flame, Flame, Flame,

Make your point or be silent.

HE'S BACK. And so are we. And we can eat and type simultaneously. Should we give him a handicap? Does he already have too many?

HE'S BACK. And so are we. And we can eat and type simultaneously. Should we give him a handicap? Does he already have too many?

Yes, for many of the less gifted, eating and typing is hard.

He has nothing to say. He was just trying to wave his flag.

Ummmm, some people Do have to eat. What are you celebrating this late? That some people are tired? Lame. And who's the Deacon guy who's always sucking your dick? :fluffle:
I think we've highjacked this thread, so I've created another in the forum for privitization discussion.

"FORUM FOR PRIVITIZATION DISCUSSION"??? Sounds like a self-sucking site.

Don't worry. Get yourself happy.

Ummmm, some people Do have to eat. What are you celebrating this late? That some people are tired? Lame. And who's the Deacon guy who's always sucking your dick? :fluffle:
I think we've highjacked this thread, so I've created another in the forum for privitization discussion.

Do your "PRIVI's" want to talk in public on this forum? You need them (and we would enjoy their "exemplary points"). We'll provide the privi-paper.

Do your "PRIVI's" want to talk in public on this forum? You need them (and we would enjoy their "exemplary points"). We'll provide the privi-paper.

GunNight EichMan. We have to hunt some "blind-privi-simps" for breakfast.

GunNight EichMan. We have to hunt some "blind-privi-simps" for breakfast.

STAY BANNED.
*clicks*

It seems to me that most of you ignored my previous post, so I have paraphrased it here.

Regardless of what the 1st Amendment states, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret it. At first, Congress meant only the national legislators. Since then, however, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes the states abide by it.

As Justice Hugo Black said, "The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First, with all the force it brings to bear against the Federal Government, against the States." The bolding is my own editing.

Statutory law of both the states and the nation are bound by case law.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that such things as police and military were the few things that Libertarians did not want privatized. I think too many people (some self-proclaimed Libertarians included) think that Libertarian means Anarchic. It doesn't. According to the Libertarian website, Libertarians believe the government's job is to protect citizens from harm and persuasion.

It seems to me that most of you ignored my previous post, so I have paraphrased it here.

Regardless of what the 1st Amendment states, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret it. At first, Congress meant only the national legislators. Since then, however, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes the states abide by it.

As Justice Hugo Black said, "The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First, with all the force it brings to bear against the Federal Government, against the States." The bolding is my own editing.

Statutory law of both the states and the nation are bound by case law.I have tried many times in many incarnations to try to drive home the point you make here. The role of the judicial branch seems beyond the comprehension of most of those who argue the meaning of specific parts of the constitution. They insist upon disecting a 2 century old text word for word and ignore it's interdependancy on the rest of the government. Good luck getting this point across, I never had much success.

I have tried many times in many incarnations to try to drive home the point you make here. The role of the judicial branch seems beyond the comprehension of most of those who argue the meaning of specific parts of the constitution. They insist upon disecting a 2 century old text word for word and ignore it's interdependancy on the rest of the government. Good luck getting this point across, I never had much success.

Well, at least I am comforted to know that one other person understands. :)

Maybe it's just the attention span of average Americans. They no longer have the will (or perhaps the capacity) to analyze everything and to formulate their own conclusions. That could be why they have been drifting, in my perceptive opinion, more toward religious reliance and authoritarianism lately.