OT: r - I thought you should see this

Page 7 of 11  


Of course I did.
The context in which you quoted them led to an inference that you had forgotten about the Articles of Confederation.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Sorry. I would not refer to a document that was no longer in effect to bolster my position about what was in effect.
But I thought that anyone would recognize where those words came from.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cool. However, we don't yet know you that well.
One could also argue that the Declaration of Independence is no longer 'in effect', having been superseded by the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

True enough. I don't usually find myself having to argue a position that taking away our constitutional right to due process is a bad thing. As long as the election continues to favor the democrats, I can probably relax. If martians come down to help and the republicans start to win, I will brush up and get ready to have to defend that more vigorously, and more accurately.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

AFAIK no part of the Patriot Act suspended the writ of hadeas corpus protected in the Constitution, which is sometimes called the "Great Writ", to distinguish it from federal habeas corpus. Federal habeas corpus is created by federal law and thus may be modified or set aside by federal law.
The Great Writ may only be suspended in time of invasion or rebellion, (and then only by the Congress--its in Article I) and thus cannot be suspended by the Patriot Act as neither circumstance is present.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had thought the law, like all federal gun laws, applied to _guns_ sold in interstate commerce.
BTW, the ICC was used recently in the Medical Marijuana Case before the USSC. Exactly how the ICC pemits regulation fo an agricultural commodity that never crosses state borders, and even in some cases, never leaves the possession of the grower is a mystery to me.
Thomas agrees with you and I on the ridiculousness of that argument. The other eight (8) justices I daresay, were more concerned with whether or not medical marijuana was a good idea, than with with the issues actually before the court.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:43:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

The intent may well have been good, but the fact remains that the act gives the feds the right to hold anyone they deem dangerous without habeus corpus. You're depending on the good intentions of a government? Doesn't sound like you :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

My comment was more meant as a poke at the comment that legislation to promote the general welfare was legitimate, regardless of whether the legislation is an enumerated power or not. The OP's position seems to be that if it promotes "the general welfare", just about any and all legislation is just fine.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I jsut thought I'd point out that the prohibition against the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is NOT in the Bill of Rights. It is in Article I of the Constitution.
That should serve as some indication of just how important that protection was to the Founding Fathers.
"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798. ME 10:61
"Freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus I deem [one of the] essential principles of our government." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:322
From:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1520.htm
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Substitute 'interstate commerce' for 'general welfare' and you have the gist of a fair number of USSC rulings.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Which also has nothing to do with the powers given to congress through the general welfare clause.
You can use the argument that in a wealthy society with some poor, the amount of money contributed by those who are doing well and have all of their primary needs met does little to detract from their general welfare. The money contributed then goes to provide primary needs to those who don't have it, thus vastly increasing their welfare. The net product is the raising of the overall welfare of the society as a whole. Thus the general welfare has been increased.

According to you and people like you that do not want to contribute to the overall welfare of our society. You thus seek to destroy such programs through an arcane and defunct method of trying to prove that you know the original intent of the framers. The supreme court already decided this issue. Take it up with them.

There are many that disagree with your claims of knowledge of the framers intent. Me, for one. And the supreme court, for two (or nine, as the case may be). Guess whose opinion is the MOST important?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clearly I don't know as much as you. Can you list every Founder and his intent WRT this issue?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:
... snip

Nice try at a condescending remark. I don't have to list every founder and his intent, they were kind enough to do that for all of us in their writings. They are contained in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, copious writings by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Payne, and others. It's not a mystery and the rationale for why they set things up the way they did makes just as much sense now as it did then; we are seeing the fruits of what happens when their sage advice is ignored.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those political tracts are entertaining but I'd rather judge their actions not their words. Federalist #10 warns of the dangers of faction but it took, what, ten seconds for these men to organize themselves in political parties. Jefferson seems to have violated your interpretation of the Constitution when he diverted federal funds to scientists. The USA Patriot Act is benign compared to the Alien and Sedition Acts that John Adams signed into law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd have sympathy for your argument if not for the fact that US is a representative democracy. The ppl tax themselves and their representatives decide how it shall be spent. Look, I don't agree with all expenditures. Bush wants to attach abstinence training to every health care program despite no collaborating evidence to demonstrate its merits. If he adds it within the rules, there's not much I can do but try better in the next round.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

Nice try, but the U.S. is a representative Republic. It was deliberately designed that way to prevent a tyranny of the majority from doing what you have described. It is not the people who are taxing themselves -- the problem is that the top 50% of income earners are paying 86% of all federal income taxes. By your description, that means the bottom 50% have the power to take the wealth of the top 50%. When you factor in the fact that the top 10% are paying about 66% of all income taxes and throw in a media and political party to wage class warfare, you can get a solid part of 90% of the populace voting to increase taxes on a small but highly productive segment of society. The time is coming when this will all break down and that upper n% is going to say, "screw it, this isn't worth it, and throw in the towel" Then, your zero-sum game economy is really going to become a reality.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Doom and gloom! Oh my! I am trying real hard to picture Paris Hilton as part of the "highly productive" segment of society. And you claim that the left is the one that foments "class warfare". If you don't stop we are leaving! How funny!
The fact is that we are the government and we do tax ourselves. You are about to see an example of how a government can change when the people get tired of how it is acting. The bums are actually about to be voted out. (With the exception of Bush, who has to leave because, due to his unpopularity, he cannot find a way to declare a state of emergency and retain power.)
We elect representatives to (of all things) represent us. They are supposed to do what we want, while tempering their actions with their intelligence and understanding of the law and our system of government. So when they pass revenue bills, it is at our bequest whether we like it or not. They are representing us.
So when the congress passes legislation that initiates a program such as TANF, or medicare, they are doing it for our benefit, because we have reached, as a society, the consensus that that promotes our general welfare. And I agree.
Mark or Juanita do not. They do not want to help those in need, because someone may abuse the system and get something for free. They do not believe in our society banding together and making a pact for each of us to share the burden of caring for those that cannot care for themselves. They wish everyone to be on their own and if you can't survive, you die.
Hard to believe, isn't it?
And this is the really crazy part; They don't believe in doing that because; 1) it is socialist, 2)it is illegal, or; 3) it promotes laziness.
They don't care whether it is really good or bad for the country, it is (pick one) of those three things and that alone, makes it bad.
Sorry, Mark or Juanita. I have heard all of this before and it still makes no sense, whatsoever.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wish you were correct. If so, Teddy Kennedy, Dodd, and a bunch of other political hacks would have been long gone.

In theory yo are correct. In reality, special interest groups and lobbyists have more power and more influence than constituents.

Good for you, I disagree. Lobbyists prevail too often.

No, not at all. Helping people is one thing, giving away my hard earned money to lazy people milking the system is entirely different. Spending in all phases of government is out of control and they just keep adding taxes instead of restraint in spending.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

The inertia of the people is hard to reverse, but it is finally being reversed. The last mid term election was the beginning of the reversal of the pendulum. It will continue. Just because it is your side of the aisle that is having to pack up, does not make my statements any less valid.

And those lobbyists and special interest groups are representing the people of the US for the most part, and they are able to exert more influence due to the apathy of the general public. I think that apathy is dissipating to the point where they will have less influence, and the will of the general public will become more important to our legislators.

I don't disagree, but I think that is changing.

So, because there are some that abuse the system, we should get rid of it and let it go back to every man for himself? I agree that spending MUST be brought under control. My argument is for a smarter application of our dollars spent by congress so that we get more bang for the buck, thus needing less of those dollars and accomplishing more.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't have a side of the aisle. Both sides should be sent packing. I'd like to see less representatives in the house and half the Senators gone too. Washington is a joke in present form.
On a local level, many towns should consolidate services, school boards, etc. I don't mind paying fair taxes for fair services, but I do mind waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.