| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2007 12:02:26 AM |
| Object: |
Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 12:11:01 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay
marriage activists seem to have forgotten.
Let's see how you manage to #@$% up this one...
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people
"People" would exclude the federal & state governments,
as in the case of anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage
laws.
One power definitely delegated to the federal government
is the Commerce Clause. That's the one that ensures when
you enter into a contract or a marriage you can't get out
of it by simply going from one state to another.
So, by your own argument, everyone in favor of state
laws & amendments against gay marriage are American
hating, freedom despising, terrorist loving pigs.
Congratulations.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 12:04:11 AM |
|
|
In news:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Dunkenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 10:45:14 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
In news:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more educated and
qualified than you.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
JAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 11:22:40 AM |
|
|
In news:4612768A.B4413198@nospam.net,
Bill Dunkenfield <BillDunkenfield@nospam.net> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
In news:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous acts by the
constitution itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 01:33:21 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous acts by
the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment specifies
"powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 01:37:24 PM |
|
|
In news:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against their
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 02:06:44 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
In news:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution
itself. No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or
disobey the Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The ruling specifies that the rights of the individual supercede the rights
of the state. State laws are thus ubconstitutional.
Keep your religion to yourself, fuckwad.
--
Geoff O'Furman
Head Coach, Varsity Hockey
University of Ediacara
AA #22??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 09:37:05 PM |
|
|
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
John D.Wentzky wrote:
In news:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution
itself. No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or
disobey the Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The ruling specifies that the rights of the individual supercede the rights
of the state. State laws are thus ubconstitutional.
Nit: States have no rights at all. They have certain powers granted
to them by the people.
Keep your religion to yourself, fuckwad.
Wentzky doesn't have any religion. He's just a nutcase soon to be an
inmate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 09:55:57 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
The ruling specifies that the rights of the individual supercede the
rights of the state. State laws are thus unconstitutional.
Nit: States have no rights at all. They have certain powers granted
to them by the people.
Thanks for clarifying that for me dude!
Keep your religion to yourself, fuckwad.
Wentzky doesn't have any religion. He's just a nutcase soon to be an
inmate.
Parsifal alluded to that too. How do you know this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 11:47:30 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The ruling specifies that the rights of the individual supercede the
rights of the state. State laws are thus unconstitutional.
Nit: States have no rights at all. They have certain powers granted
to them by the people.
Thanks for clarifying that for me dude!
Keep your religion to yourself, fuckwad.
Wentzky doesn't have any religion. He's just a nutcase soon to be an
inmate.
Parsifal alluded to that too. How do you know this?
Wentzky whined about the police and/or DA in a town or county in South
Carolina, and someone searched a few web sites and found a public
record about a recent DUI charge and assaulting a police officer, plus
previous run-ins with the law. It's not like the topic wasn't beaten
to death, with Wentzky himself providing enough evidence to figuratively
hang himself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
04 Apr 2007 08:44:33 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Wentzky doesn't have any religion. He's just a nutcase soon to be
an inmate.
Parsifal alluded to that too. How do you know this?
Wentzky whined about the police and/or DA in a town or county in South
Carolina, and someone searched a few web sites and found a public
record about a recent DUI charge and assaulting a police officer, plus
previous run-ins with the law. It's not like the topic wasn't beaten
to death, with Wentzky himself providing enough evidence to
figuratively hang himself.
Yeah, I missed that. I am pretty selective where my attention goes here with
J Young and his ilk on the extreme right and Yang whining from the left.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 09:20:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:37:24 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
alt.atheism
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
True. Before 1865, states had the power to declare Negroes free or
slave to themselves.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against their
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
Wrong. The state legislatures did their jobs and got rid of out of
date laws.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
SCOTUS (to use the proper acronym) relied on the 14th Amendments
promise of due process in the Roe v. Wade decision. Specifically, the
14th Amendment makes it the law of the land that "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."
Since a blanket prohibition on abortion violated due process, it was
thrown out. The main case cited was Griswold v. Connecticut, where
blanket prohibitions on contraceptives were struck down as illegal.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tapio Erola" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
04 Apr 2007 09:31:14 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:37:24 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
alt.atheism
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
True. Before 1865, states had the power to declare Negroes free or
slave to themselves.
Also note that it wasn't any Supreme Court case or decision which
ended it. It was the duly processed and ratified 13th and 14th
amendments which did it.
If you want to ban abortion on federal level, you should do it properly.
The process is quite clear.
ObFun: One of the reasons why Dred Scott was decided as it was decided
was the explicitly noted comment on how deciding for Dred Scott would
mean that negroes could "keep and carry arms wherever they went". Just
like white people did...
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
Wentzky should check his meds.
SCOTUS (to use the proper acronym) relied on the 14th Amendments
promise of due process in the Roe v. Wade decision. Specifically, the
14th Amendment makes it the law of the land that "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."
Since a blanket prohibition on abortion violated due process, it was
thrown out. The main case cited was Griswold v. Connecticut, where
blanket prohibitions on contraceptives were struck down as illegal.
It is my opinion that the decision was wrong. Original dissenters
put it best:
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to
support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces
a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely
any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with
sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion
statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the
50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative
importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus,
on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the
mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the
Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my
view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the
power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."
--Byron J. White
As for 14th Amendment argument, that too was shot down in dissent:
"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the
scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently
completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as
1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted
by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by
state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many
States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the
books in 1868 remain in effect today."
--William H. Rehnquist
--
The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make
for ourselves. --Terminator 2
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 02:28:31 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against their
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
The Court's decisions cannot be unconstitutional unless the Court
itself finds them to be. Tough luck, Johnny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 02:37:48 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 3:28=EF=BF=BDpm, "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against th=
eir
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the pe=
ople
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
The Court's decisions cannot be unconstitutional unless the Court
itself finds them to be. =A0Tough luck, Johnny.
Don't worry Johnny, He/it is talking ***** again..
As posted to alt.recovery.aa:
"Hi, my story seems funny but it's actually a very serious problem to
me. I have a fetish with sniffing guys' balls even when I don't know
the person. My psychologist says it could be a rare form of
Tourette's syndrome but I cannot help it" --Smegma connoisseur
scottyFLL
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.aa/msg/b78dbc38b00b5570?&hl=3Den
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 04:30:07 PM |
|
|
bobandcarole wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:28�pm, "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against their
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
The Court's decisions cannot be unconstitutional unless the Court
itself finds them to be. �Tough luck, Johnny.
Don't worry Johnny, He/it is talking ***** again..
As posted to alt.recovery.aa:
"Hi, my story seems funny but it's actually a very serious problem to
me. I have a fetish with sniffing guys' balls even when I don't know
the person. My psychologist says it could be a rare form of
Tourette's syndrome but I cannot help it" --Smegma connoisseur
scottyFLL
Says the guy who puts out adverts wanting partners for homosexual sex
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.aa/msg/b78dbc38b00b5570?&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 03:22:50 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against their
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
Where did the war between New York / California and the United States
take place?
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 08:51:22 PM |
|
|
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175631770.469475.189890@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 3, 2:37 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:q-CdnWE6Ftl2AI_bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@giganews.com,
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:zcvQh.19072$ER1.12428@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous
acts by the constitution itself.
Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. The 10th Amendment
specifies "powers not delegated". It's not the same thing.
Another lie.
The States all had the abortion powers reserved to themselves in 1973.
The governments of California and New York committed treason against
their
own constitutions and the people of their States when they neglected the
right of the people in their states in 1967 and 1970, respectively.
The USSC committed a traitorous act against the Constitution and the
people
of the United States by allowing RoeVWade to override the separation of
powers clause found in the tenth amendment when they overturned Texas'
Coonstitutionally protected decision.
Where did the war between New York / California and the United States
take place?
In Wentzky's head.
There's plenty room in there for a full scale battle.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 09:04:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:22:40 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
alt.atheism
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
All those define you to a T, Johnny.
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
I see Johnny is hitting a manic stage.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
No person in the USA has the authority to neglect or disobey the
Constitution.
Actually, those ruling cite the Constitution and previous case law.
Denying and/or neglecting the Constitution are deemed treasonous acts by the
constitution itself.
No, they aren't. The Constitution (Article III, Section 3) defines
treason thusly:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court."
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 01:04:04 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 12:22 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:4612768A.B4413198@nospam.net,
Bill Dunkenfield <BillDunkenfi...@nospam.net> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
Innews:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutional!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
03 Apr 2007 07:28:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1175623444.547763.137130@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1scott@lycos.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:22 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:4612768A.B4413198@nospam.net,
Bill Dunkenfield <BillDunkenfi...@nospam.net> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
Innews:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself does not
give the Supreme Court that power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
04 Apr 2007 06:29:02 AM |
|
|
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:22 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:4612768A.B4413198@nospam.net,
Bill Dunkenfield <BillDunkenfi...@nospam.net> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
Innews:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself does not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
04 Apr 2007 06:04:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1175686142.181254.155230@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:22 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:4612768A.B4413198@nospam.net,
Bill Dunkenfield <BillDunkenfi...@nospam.net> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
Innews:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me
in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself does not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as it
gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
05 Apr 2007 01:24:36 AM |
|
|
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:22 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:4612768A.B4413198@nospam.net,
Bill Dunkenfield <BillDunkenfi...@nospam.net> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" wrote:
Innews:1175576546.768386.72200@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> typed:
Just a little something the abortionists and gay marriage activists
seem to have forgotten.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people
Which automatically casts roevwade out.
This has been reviewed many time by US citizens much more
gulty, afraid, dishonest, unupright and wimpy than me
educated and qualified than you.
Your standards of judgement are inferior and they are invalid.
There are no better educated people or better qualified people than me
in
the USA in this area, AFAIK at this point in time.
The rulings made by these US citizens say you are wrong.
The rulings are deemd to be in error by the U.S. Constitution itself.
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself does not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as it
gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does have
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
05 Apr 2007 06:14:52 AM |
|
|
In article <1175754276.798750.206200@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself does not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as it
gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does have
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
And as I pointed out, it only has that "right" so long as Congress lets
them.** They can take it away at any time for the very reason that the
power is NOT found in the Constitution itself.
**The Supreme Court actually has no "rights" whatsoever. Only citizens
have rights. The government has powers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
06 Apr 2007 07:33:06 AM |
|
|
On 5 Apr., 13:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175754276.798750.206...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is constitutio=
nal!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself do=
es not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as it
gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does have
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
And as I pointed out, it only has that "right" so long as Congress lets
them.** They can take it away at any time for the very reason that the
power is NOT found in the Constitution itself.
It is found in the Constitution. The only thing you have pointed out
are the limits on it.
**The Supreme Court actually has no "rights" whatsoever. Only citizens
have rights. The government has powers.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
Aren't you the clever one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
06 Apr 2007 11:14:54 AM |
|
|
In article <1175862786.529870.132320@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On 5 Apr., 13:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175754276.798750.206...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is
constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself does
not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as it
gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does have
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
And as I pointed out, it only has that "right" so long as Congress lets
them.** They can take it away at any time for the very reason that the
power is NOT found in the Constitution itself.
It is found in the Constitution.
Where? Cite the article and section.
**The Supreme Court actually has no "rights" whatsoever. Only citizens
have rights. The government has powers.
Aren't you the clever one.
No, just accurate. Something you ought to give a try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
09 Apr 2007 12:59:25 AM |
|
|
On 6 Apr., 18:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175862786.529870.132...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 13:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175754276.798750.206...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com=
,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Apr., 02:28, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175623444.547763.137...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.=
com>,
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
LOL! A ruling by the Supreme Court DEFINES what is
constitutional!
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbur=
y v.
Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itsel=
f does
not
give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it =
as it
gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does ha=
ve
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
And as I pointed out, it only has that "right" so long as Congress le=
ts
them.** They can take it away at any time for the very reason that the
power is NOT found in the Constitution itself.
It is found in the Constitution.
Where? Cite the article and section.
You have already cited the part that gives the Congress the right to
limit the power of the Court - after it describes that power.
**The Supreme Court actually has no "rights" whatsoever. Only citizens
have rights. The government has powers.
Aren't you the clever one.
No, just accurate. Something you ought to give a try.- Skjul tekst i anf=
=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
15 Apr 2007 08:00:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1176098365.875048.46200@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On 6 Apr., 18:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175862786.529870.132...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 13:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175754276.798750.206...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury
v. Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself
does not give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as
it gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does have
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
And as I pointed out, it only has that "right" so long as Congress lets
them.** They can take it away at any time for the very reason that the
power is NOT found in the Constitution itself.
It is found in the Constitution.
Where? Cite the article and section.
You have already cited the part that gives the Congress the right to
limit the power of the Court - after it describes that power.
Which wasn't what's at issue here. You claimed the power of the Court to
review acts of Congress and void them as unconstitutional is found in
the Constitution. I asked you to cite the article and section where the
Constitution gives the Court that power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution |
16 Apr 2007 05:43:38 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr., 03:00, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1176098365.875048.46...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 6 Apr., 18:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175862786.529870.132...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 13:14, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175754276.798750.206...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5 Apr., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175686142.181254.155...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Only because they usurped that power for themselves in Marbury
v. Madison and no one bothered to object. The Constitution itself
does not give the Supreme Court that power.-
Where does it give you the power to interpret the Constitution?
The Constitution gives me just as much power to interpret the it as
it gives the Supreme Court-- which is to say none.-
You may argue that if you like. The fact is that the Court does have
that right, whereever you wish to trace its source.
And as I pointed out, it only has that "right" so long as Congress lets
them.** They can take it away at any time for the very reason that the
power is NOT found in the Constitution itself.
It is found in the Constitution.
Where? Cite the article and section.
You have already cited the part that gives the Congress the right to
limit the power of the Court - after it describes that power.
Which wasn't what's at issue here. You claimed the power of the Court to
review acts of Congress and void them as unconstitutional is found in
the Constitution. I asked you to cite the article and section where the
Constitution gives the Court that power.-
And I did. It is Article III, and that is true whether the Congress
has the right to limit the Court's power or not. You say the Congress
can limit the Court's power, which logically requires that the Court
has that power.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
