| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 04:05:23 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b2dfaa$0$58081$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or
establish citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your claim.
Wrong. you implied that sovereignty is only possible in an entity issues
passports and provides citizenship. Now you have to prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 09:32:21 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b2dfaa$0$58081$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or
establish citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your claim.
Wrong.
Coward.
you implied that sovereignty is only possible in an entity issues
passports and provides citizenship.
I implied no such thing.
States MAY NOT issue passports. They MAY NOT have citizens. They
MAY NOT control their borders.
That's not sovereignty.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
30 Dec 2005 07:21:15 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b4aa45$0$58100$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b2dfaa$0$58081$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or
establish citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your claim.
Wrong.
Coward.
you implied that sovereignty is only possible in an entity issues
passports and provides citizenship.
I implied no such thing.
States MAY NOT issue passports.
So? Passports are a recent concept and since when is are they a
prerequisite for sovereignty? If Canada decided to stop issuing passports
would it no longer be considered a sovereign nation?
They MAY NOT have citizens.
Wrong. The Constitution already declares that states have citizens.
They MAY NOT control their borders.
So? EU nations don't control their borders either. Does that mean that
France or Germany isn't sovereign?
That's not sovereignty.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
30 Dec 2005 12:49:37 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or
establish citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your claim.
Wrong.
Coward.
you implied that sovereignty is only possible in an entity issues
passports and provides citizenship.
I implied no such thing.
States MAY NOT issue passports.
So?
Sovereign states do.
Passports are a recent concept
So is liberty.
If Canada decided to stop issuing passports
would it no longer be considered a sovereign nation?
You're apparently too stupid to notice the difference between having
the power to issue passports and not doing so, and not being even
allowed to issue passports.
They MAY NOT have citizens.
Wrong. The Constitution already declares that states have citizens.
Of the United States.
They MAY NOT control their borders.
So?
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
31 Dec 2005 01:06:58 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b58141$0$58049$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or
establish citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your
claim.
Wrong.
Coward.
you implied that sovereignty is only possible in an entity issues
passports and provides citizenship.
I implied no such thing.
States MAY NOT issue passports.
So?
Sovereign states do.
Passports are a recent concept
So is liberty.
If Canada decided to stop issuing passports
would it no longer be considered a sovereign nation?
You're apparently too stupid to notice the difference between having
the power to issue passports and not doing so, and not being even
allowed to issue passports.
They MAY NOT have citizens.
Wrong. The Constitution already declares that states have citizens.
Of the United States.
Wrong again. You've already quoted a section of the Constitution discussing
how states have citizens, thus defeating your own argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPTFreedm" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 08:02:26 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their state
of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or establish
citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your claim.
Avoiding the goal posts. Deuteros scores so you squint your eyes shut
and just say it aint so.
CPT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 09:30:55 PM |
|
|
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their state
of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports.
Since when are sovereign states requires to issue passports or establish
citizenship?
Moving the goalposts: Your claim is refuted so you change your claim.
Avoiding the goal posts.
Gee, another right-wing idiot who has to start lying. What a surprise.
Anything at all to justify your cult.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 08:46:03 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each
sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of sovereign
If states were sovereign then they would not have to get the consent
of other states.
They don't have to when they make their own laws and policies.
Likewise cities, which aren't sovereign either.
Irrelevant.
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their state of
residence
You're either stupid or lying.
C) both
States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even permitted
to control their borders.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 01:56:37 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each
sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of sovereign
If states were sovereign then they would not have to get the consent
of other states.
They don't have to when they make their own laws and policies.
Likewise cities, which aren't sovereign either.
Irrelevant.
Idiot troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 09:14:30 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b04af5$0$58123$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each
sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of
sovereign
If states were sovereign then they would not have to get the consent
of other states.
They don't have to when they make their own laws and policies.
Likewise cities, which aren't sovereign either.
Irrelevant.
Idiot troll.
My mistake. I thought you had a valid point to argue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 12:54:52 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b04af5$0$58123$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each
sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of
sovereign
If states were sovereign then they would not have to get the consent
of other states.
They don't have to when they make their own laws and policies.
Likewise cities, which aren't sovereign either.
Irrelevant.
Idiot troll.
My mistake. I thought you had a valid point to argue.
"Irrelevant"
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 03:51:52 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aaf890$0$58110$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of sovereign
If states were sovereign then they would not have to get the consent
of other states.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 03:50:46 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aaf890$0$58110$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of sovereign
states that is the United States (by passing an amendment to the
Constitution that said simply enough, "The Union formed by this
Constitution is hereby dissolved and this Constitution shall hereafter have
no force and effect."), then what you would have left would be the 50
sovereign states, who would reclaim that portion of their sovereignty that
they had placed with the United States. That's not going to happen, of
course, but is illustrative of how the Constitution is the creature of the
states, how it is the states that create the Union, and how it is the
states -- each a sovereign entity in itself save for that part of its
sovereignty that it has surrendered to the Union -- that can dissolve the
Union through the Constitution's amending process and withdraw and return
to themselves the full body of their sovereignty.
"Dual sovereignty" is the established structure of the sovereign union of
sovereign states that is the United States. This was understood at the time
the Constitution was written and ratified, is the source of tension between
the states and the national government, and can be observed by simply
throwing open a window and taking a look at the way things are. States have
the power to tax, the police power, the power to regulate commerce within
their jurisdiction, and they make the laws regarding property, marriage-
family-divorce, contract, and civil disputes. They have their own
constitutions, legislatures, executives, judiciaries, etc. And their laws
are supreme within their sphere, which in the case of each state is larger
than that of the federal sphere (by dint of legal authority not size of
budget). In cases where the state sphere comes into conflict with the
federal sphere, the federal sphere is supreme, which is what the supremacy
clause is about. The federal government is not supreme outside of its
sphere, unless there is a genuine conflict.
Can 38 states really repeal the constitution? Would that not deprive the
other 12 of their right to equal suffrage in the senate?
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 10:45:49 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43ac7135$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Can 38 states really repeal the constitution? Would that not deprive the
other 12 of their right to equal suffrage in the senate?
If the Constitution was repealed then there would be no Senate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 03:47:21 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43ac7135$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Can 38 states really repeal the constitution? Would that not deprive the
other 12 of their right to equal suffrage in the senate?
If the Constitution was repealed then there would be no Senate.
My point exactly.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Heeke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 07:59:34 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aaf890$0$58110$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal government and the state
governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of sovereign
states that is the United States (by passing an amendment to the
Constitution that said simply enough, "The Union formed by this
Constitution is hereby dissolved and this Constitution shall hereafter
have no force and effect."), then what you would have left would be
the 50 sovereign states, who would reclaim that portion of their
sovereignty that they had placed with the United States. That's not
going to happen, of course, but is illustrative of how the
Constitution is the creature of the states, how it is the states that
create the Union, and how it is the states -- each a sovereign entity
in itself save for that part of its sovereignty that it has
surrendered to the Union -- that can dissolve the Union through the
Constitution's amending process and withdraw and return to themselves
the full body of their sovereignty.
"Dual sovereignty" is the established structure of the sovereign union
of sovereign states that is the United States. This was understood at
the time the Constitution was written and ratified, is the source of
tension between the states and the national government, and can be
observed by simply throwing open a window and taking a look at the way
things are. States have the power to tax, the police power, the power
to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction, and they make the laws
regarding property, marriage-
family-divorce, contract, and civil disputes. They have their own
constitutions, legislatures, executives, judiciaries, etc. And their
laws are supreme within their sphere, which in the case of each state
is larger than that of the federal sphere (by dint of legal authority
not size of budget). In cases where the state sphere comes into
conflict with the federal sphere, the federal sphere is supreme, which
is what the supremacy clause is about. The federal government is not
supreme outside of its sphere, unless there is a genuine conflict.
Can 38 states really repeal the constitution? Would that not deprive the
other 12 of their right to equal suffrage in the senate?
When there were 13, and the Articles of Confederation was the law of the
land, it was essentially replaced by the Constitution, upon ratification
by 9 states. It was not effective for the remaining states, until they
ratified. The framers of the Constitution considered it experimental.
Had not Madison agreed to append a Bill of Rights upon ratification, it
would certainly not have been ratified, there would have had to have
been another constitutional convention.
--
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.
to email me, concatenate the following:
nom de plume of Jay, Madison, Hamilton-The Federalist
(new, in Latin) at (this planet) dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 02:53:40 AM |
|
|
Rick Heeke wrote:
Martin Holterman wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aaf890$0$58110$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
The constitution holds that the federal government and the state
governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"Please cite from the constitution the section that provides" that
states are sovereign.
Well, if 38 states voted to dissolve the sovereign union of sovereign
states that is the United States (by passing an amendment to the
Constitution that said simply enough, "The Union formed by this
Constitution is hereby dissolved and this Constitution shall
hereafter have no force and effect."), then what you would have left
would be the 50 sovereign states, who would reclaim that portion of
their sovereignty that they had placed with the United States. That's
not going to happen, of course, but is illustrative of how the
Constitution is the creature of the states, how it is the states that
create the Union, and how it is the states -- each a sovereign entity
in itself save for that part of its sovereignty that it has
surrendered to the Union -- that can dissolve the Union through the
Constitution's amending process and withdraw and return to themselves
the full body of their sovereignty.
"Dual sovereignty" is the established structure of the sovereign
union of sovereign states that is the United States. This was
understood at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, is
the source of tension between the states and the national government,
and can be observed by simply throwing open a window and taking a
look at the way things are. States have the power to tax, the police
power, the power to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction, and
they make the laws regarding property, marriage-
family-divorce, contract, and civil disputes. They have their own
constitutions, legislatures, executives, judiciaries, etc. And their
laws are supreme within their sphere, which in the case of each state
is larger than that of the federal sphere (by dint of legal authority
not size of budget). In cases where the state sphere comes into
conflict with the federal sphere, the federal sphere is supreme,
which is what the supremacy clause is about. The federal government
is not supreme outside of its sphere, unless there is a genuine
conflict.
Can 38 states really repeal the constitution? Would that not deprive
the other 12 of their right to equal suffrage in the senate?
When there were 13, and the Articles of Confederation was the law of the
land, it was essentially replaced by the Constitution, upon ratification
by 9 states. It was not effective for the remaining states, until they
ratified. The framers of the Constitution considered it experimental.
Had not Madison agreed to append a Bill of Rights upon ratification, it
would certainly not have been ratified, there would have had to have
been another constitutional convention.
I know, but how does this relate to what I said?
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 03:20:30 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aa3524$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
The civil war was about gun control? What history class did you take?
Idiot.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You need a serious civics lesson.
You need to stop being such a stupid ashsole.
Please cite from the constitution the section that provides the federal
government authority over the United States.
The constitution holds that the federal
government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
No, idiot, it does not.
Wrong again.
"It created a federal union of sovereign states"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 03:41:17 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aa3524$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Here's a clue for you, moron: The constitution wasn't completed in
1787.
Ah. And when was it "completed?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:11:15 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a9fa7f$0$58100$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
Since you're a huge fan of the federal government I can only imagine what a
brainwashed Bush supporter you are.
The Civil War doesn't matter when it comes to making law. Only the
Constitution does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 01:05:21 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
Since you're a huge fan of the federal government
Since you are a huge liar....
The Civil War doesn't matter when it comes to making law. Only the
Constitution does.
Which is why you try so hard to ignore all of the amendments.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPTFreedm" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 03:34:33 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What, you can't build a highway without confiscating someone's property?
Nope. Try it sometime.
Don't have to try it. I've seen it done numerous times.
Do keep trying though, your mind's fantasy world is fascinating.
I note you didn't/couldn't wouldn't answer how Dueteros suggestions
would cause or contribute to the "anarchy" you imagine.
CPT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 04:34:52 PM |
|
|
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What, you can't build a highway without confiscating someone's property?
Nope. Try it sometime.
Don't have to try it. I've seen it done numerous times.
You're full of *****. Cite some of these "numerous" highways.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 06:02:50 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab2a0c$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc, so yes they
are indeed sovereign. The states aren't even required to have the same
forms of government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 08:26:58 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc,
Cities have their own laws as well in addition to charters.
They're not sovereign either. States do NOT have the power of
sovereign entities like the United States. For example, states do not
have the power to enter into treaties for other sovereign nations
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 10:46:38 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab6072$0$58117$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc,
Cities have their own laws as well in addition to charters.
They're not sovereign either. States do NOT have the power of
sovereign entities like the United States. For example, states do not
have the power to enter into treaties for other sovereign nations
That's because the states gave that specific power to the federal
government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 12:37:17 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab6072$0$58117$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc,
Cities have their own laws as well in addition to charters.
They're not sovereign either. States do NOT have the power of
sovereign entities like the United States. For example, states do not
have the power to enter into treaties for other sovereign nations
That's because the states gave that specific power to the federal
government.
In 1787 and are thus no longer sovereign.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPTFreedm" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 10:25:28 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab2a0c$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc, so yes they
are indeed sovereign. The states aren't even required to have the same
forms of government.
Except that it must be "Republican" (not the party silly Ray)
CPT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 12:43:18 PM |
|
|
CPTFreedm wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab2a0c$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators
cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment: The federal governmnent shall not
make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc, so yes they
are indeed sovereign. The states aren't even required to have the same
forms of government.
Except that it must be "Republican" (not the party silly Ray)
CPT
I think this whole discussion is getting a bit silly. If you see
sovereignity as something indivisible, you're never going to be able to
sort this out. Sovereignity lies partially with the states, and
partially with the federal government. Over here, in Europe, we have yet
another level in the European Union. Not to mention the international
organizations to which states have transferred some of their
sovereignity, such as the United Nations, the WTO or the ICC. In today's
legal environment, viewing sovereignity as indivisible leads to an
unworkable defininition.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 01:53:40 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
CPTFreedm wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab2a0c$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators
cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment: The federal governmnent shall not
make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
Unless the Sovereign States restrict it. Notice he said "federal
government"?
That issue was settled by the civil war. Your side lost.
There are no "Sovereign States".
You mean besides the 50 sovereign States that make up the Federal
Republic of the United States of America?
You think that the states are sovereign merely because you say so?
Never mind that the constitution prevents them from acting as
sovereign, you've got your fantasy to cling to.
Each state has its own laws, government, constitution, etc, so yes they
are indeed sovereign. The states aren't even required to have the same
forms of government.
Except that it must be "Republican" (not the party silly Ray)
I think this whole discussion is getting a bit silly. If you see
sovereignity as something indivisible, you're never going to be able to
sort this out. Sovereignity lies partially with the states, and
partially with the federal government.
sovereignty: a : supreme power especially over a body politic b :
freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
www.m-w.com
States do not have supreme power and are not free from external control.
They must abide by the US Constitution which limits the kind of laws
they may enact. They do not have the autonomy of a nation, may not
control their borders, and do not have citizens.
As usual, you right-wing neocons try to redefine words.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
