On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Could be. OTOH, it could be only Madison's personal view of the matter.
There were a lot of differing opinions at that convention and a lot of
language was purposely left vague to achieve a consensus. Not that I know
this clause is one of those, just that it could be.
BTW, I accidentally deleted Doug Miller's post, so I'll comment on it
here. He stated something along the lines of "The Constitution is what it
says it is" and goes on to say that the Supreme Court is often wrong in
Well, I'd sure rather trust some experienced judicial minds to tell me
what the Constitution means than to trust Doug's interpretation. Or my
own for that matter.
If I misquoted you DOug, I apologize.
You miss the point methinks. We are either a nation of laws or not. If
we are, then we should both abide by the existing laws AND use the
lawful mechanisms already in place to change laws that are archaic,
irrelevant, or just plain wrong. Even the Constitution itself is open
to such changes.
What we should not be doing is *ignoring* our laws just because we
don't like the outcome for the moment. You want stronger Federal
action? Fine - convince a supermajority of states to approve it and
modify the Constitution. But cheating the way FDR and all the
so-called "progressives" have done for some 8 decades is neither good
for the nation nor honorable. The US Constitution and indeed the
entire system is built on the doctrine of Enumerated Powers - That the
Feds only get to do something with *specific permission for that
action*. This is not a matter of legal interpretation or some
technical subtlety of law. This is one of the large, unambiguous
cornerstones of our entire government. Attempts to read the exact
inverse of this are obnoxious, wrong, and destructive to both
rule-of-law and liberty itself.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:29:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
It wasn't that long ago that an average CEO made about 50 times what the
average worker did. Now it's about 500 times. If that doesn't bother
you, I don't know what would.
I'll vote for the candidate who wants to get us out of this stupid
unjustified war in Iraq.
I'll vote for the candidate who thinks what a woman does with her own body
is her business.
I'll vote for the candidate who wants to stop the ridiculous growth in US
I'll vote for the candidate who says earmarks should have to be in
separate bills of their own so that they can be voted up or down on their
And on, and on, and ....
Since there is no such candidate, I'll vote for the one who at least
supports the first two.
Whether that bothers me or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that
someone would think that a private-industry issue should be solved by the
Opinions regarding the rationale aside (I'm sure the administration and
Congress deliberately decided and voted to wage a stupid and unjustified
war), don't you have the slightest concern that simple "cut and run" might
just damage the view of our country and embolden other tyrannical regimes?
Wouldn't winning and then getting out make more sense?
I haven't heard anybody opposing or advocating legislation to ban
piercings or tattoos. Have you?
Huh? What do you define as ridiculous? We actually have the opposite
problem, due to the success of the "population bomb" propaganda of the
60's, along with the accompanying rampant narcissism, the population growth
actually slowed. We now are facing a situation in which the older
population (the boomers) are going to outnumber the younger generation.
That's going to raise all kinds of havoc with FDR's Social Security Ponzi
I think you slipped up on that one, that's a conservative issue.
OK, so we've got one vote for more government intervention in the free
market and defeat in Iraq.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:52:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita
Like we did in Vietnam? It's amazing how that country fell apart when
The war is Iraq is a religeous war between indigenous people that can
only be won when one side or the other is eliminated. Neither side is
willing to tolerate being ruled by the other.
We send young kids over there to wage a war in a situation where they
can't tell friends from enemies, then prosecute them when they act out
of fear and kill the wrong side (I'll grant that there are a few
justified prosecutions). Then our illustrious government wants to
spend as little as possible caring for the returning vets.
We need to tell the Iraqi people to get their act together and
witrhdraw with all haste.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:52:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
So the government has no obligation to protect the powerless from the
Funny, but avoids the issue.
You must not have read/heard the news lately. The population is projected
to increase from 300 million to 400 million in about 30 years, mostly
driven by immigration and the immigrants large families. Sounds like a
lot of "younger generation" to me.
YOu're the one who labelled me liberal, I agree with some issues from both
parties and disagree with others. Unlike some who never met a
liberal/conservative they didn't hate :-).
How is this germane to how a company in private industry chooses to
compensate its employees? At some point major shareholders are going to
rise up and stop this nonsense, particularly if they see that the
compensation does not equate to superior performance.
Oh no, this is absolutely the issue. Up to the time of conception, a
woman is perfectly free to do with her body as she chooses. After
conception, there is another living being, the utmost definition of
innocence and vulnerability that must be considered. That some elements of
our society have deemed that being to not be a life, despite all of the
scientific evidence (sonograms and other devices) that show the development
of that life does not make it any less a life when it is violently ripped
from the womb and discarded like just so much spoiled meat. This is
especially true in the case of one of the candidates who not once, but
three times opposed laws to protect the lives of those infants born alive
during botched abortions. Do you realize what that implies? This was a
stand taken for infanticide, there is no other definition for it. The
excuse offered was quite lame and antithetical to every other liberal
position that always defends government encroachment with the meme of "if
just one life is saved, it's worth the invasiveness".
If your issue here is the illegal immigration issue and the problems
regarding the failure to assimilate even legal immigrants into our society,
then we agree on something.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:30 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
That's your opinion. Mine is that a fetus is not a human being until
it can survive outside the womb. Until then, it is a potential human
being. That does not make abortion a process to undergo lightly, but it
should be the woman's right to make that decision.
It's funny that none of the "pro choice" crowd want to force people to
have abortions, but the "pro-life" crowd seems to think they have the
right to force their beliefs on others.
No, my issue is overpopulation. At present, it seems to be driven by
immigration, but that may just be a temporary condition. I've seen the
changes wrought over my lifetime resulting from a US population that has
more than doubled already and they aren't good.
Bothers me, but the President did not assign the pay scale. He won't solve
Sounds kind of contradictory to me. If a woman wants to make babies (or
not) you think that is OK, but you want to stop the population growth. Are
you suggesting we adopt the policies of China in that regard?
The government should get out of the baby business all together.
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.