| 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 |
28 Dec 2005 09:18:10 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b19bc4$0$58065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
CPTFreedm wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
(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.
Neither does the federal government.
They must abide by the US Constitution which limits the kind of laws
they may enact.
The same applies to the federal government.
They do not have the autonomy of a nation,
If that is true then France and Germany are not nations because they are
subject to the European Union.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 03:52:04 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
States do not have supreme power and are not free from external control.
Neither does the federal government.
It only acts that way...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 12:56:34 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b19bc4$0$58065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
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.
Neither does the federal government.
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 04:17:00 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b2dfe2$0$58081$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b19bc4$0$58065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
States do not have supreme power and are not free from external
control.
Neither does the federal government.
Liar.
The federal government's power is limited to what is granted to it in the
constitution. The states have power over everything else imaginable. The
states are supreme when it comes to anything not mentioned in the
Constitution or prohibited by the Constitution.
Arguably, the states have more authority over matters than the federal
government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 09:35:17 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
States do not have supreme power and are not free from external
control.
Neither does the federal government.
Liar.
The federal government's power is limited to what is granted to it in the
constitution.
The constitution is the federal government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
30 Dec 2005 07:03:50 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b4aaf5$0$58100$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
States do not have supreme power and are not free from external
control.
Neither does the federal government.
Liar.
The federal government's power is limited to what is granted to it in
the constitution.
The constitution is the federal government.
Wrong again. The Constitution is an agreement between the federal
government and the states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
30 Dec 2005 12:50:49 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:
States do not have supreme power and are not free from external
control.
Neither does the federal government.
Liar.
The federal government's power is limited to what is granted to it in
the constitution.
The constitution is the federal government.
Wrong again. The Constitution is an agreement between the federal
government and the states.
Nonsense. Without a constitution there is no federal government.
It creates and defines the federal government and defines the
obligations and powers of the states.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
30 Dec 2005 08:09:00 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in news:43b53036$0$708$892e7fe2
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Wrong again. The Constitution is an agreement between the federal
government and the states.
Also wrong. The Constutution is an agreement amoing the states to create a
national government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
31 Dec 2005 01:10:22 PM |
|
|
Publius <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in
news:H7GdnYB0DoyhdSjeRVn-rA@comcast.com:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43b53036$0$708$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Wrong again. The Constitution is an agreement between the federal
government and the states.
Also wrong. The Constutution is an agreement amoing the states to create
a national government.
It does both.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 10:32:03 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43b4aaf5$0$58100
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
The federal government's power is limited to what is granted to it in the
constitution.
The constitution is the federal government.
LOL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 06:17:15 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b19bc4$0$58065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
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.
Neither does the federal government.
Absolutely.
They must abide by the US Constitution which limits the kind of laws
they may enact.
The same applies to the federal government.
Absolutely.
They do not have the autonomy of a nation,
If that is true then France and Germany are not nations because they are
subject to the European Union.
Ho, stop, nation is not a legal concept. There is no good definition of
a nation, except that a nation is a group of people who think they are a
nation.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 05:32:00 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b19bc4$0$58065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
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.
You need to read that document some time. It creates a scheme of joint
sovereignty between the states and the national government. Each is supreme
within the realms defined.
Any state or nation which enters into a compact or treaty with another
surrenders some of its autonomy. The US states surrendered some of theirs
by ratifying the Constitution. The US surrendered some by joining the UN,
WTO, etc.
States do control their borders, as you would know if you ever tried to
drive a commercial truck across state lines. The don't control immigration
from outside the US, since that is a power delegated by the Constitution to
the feds.
As for citizenship:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."
---14th Amendment
Of course, as we are now in the post-Constitutional era of American
history, much of that joint sovereignty structure has been dismantled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 09:19:37 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b19bc4$0$58065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
and do not have citizens.
Wrong again. Read the 14th amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 02:38:07 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power. On others, the Feds are in
charge. (I can say this using the other definitions you quoted, too, if
you like.) If you want to generalize over all fields of policy, you're
never going to be able to sort this out.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 03:36:17 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power.
Non sequitur. States are granted certain powers by the federal
Constitution. That doesn't make them sovereign. It makes them
subject to federal law.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 04:56:39 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power.
Non sequitur. States are granted certain powers by the federal
Constitution. That doesn't make them sovereign. It makes them
subject to federal law.
Actually, I don't think that is the correct way to put it. The states
already had those powers before the constitution came into force. They
went from forming a confederation to a federation. They surrendered some
of their powers to the federal government.
But regardless of which version is more accurate, historically, the fact
still remains that the states have sovereignity over some fields, and
the federal government has sovereignity over others. Over a great number
of other fields they share sovereignity. I never said, nor would I, that
either is sovereign, period, without any further explanation. That is
because such a statement would be so meaningless as to be simply silly.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 10:42:06 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power.
Non sequitur. States are granted certain powers by the federal
Constitution. That doesn't make them sovereign. It makes them
subject to federal law.
Actually, I don't think that is the correct way to put it. The states
already had those powers before the constitution came into force. They
went from forming a confederation to a federation. They surrendered some
of their powers to the federal government.
Quite a few powers. They gave up sovereignty. There is no nation of
New York. It is a state within the nation The United States.
But regardless of which version is more accurate, historically, the fact
still remains that the states have sovereignity over some fields,
Doublespeak. You try to equate sovereignity with authority. They're
not the same thing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 09:20:49 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b2179e$0$58106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
CPTFreedm wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
(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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power.
Non sequitur. States are granted certain powers by the federal
Constitution. That doesn't make them sovereign. It makes them
subject to federal law.
Actually, I don't think that is the correct way to put it. The states
already had those powers before the constitution came into force. They
went from forming a confederation to a federation. They surrendered some
of their powers to the federal government.
Quite a few powers. They gave up sovereignty. There is no nation of
New York. It is a state within the nation The United States.
Nobody said each state was a nation. Each state is a sovereign entity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 12:56:17 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b2179e$0$58106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power.
Non sequitur. States are granted certain powers by the federal
Constitution. That doesn't make them sovereign. It makes them
subject to federal law.
Actually, I don't think that is the correct way to put it. The states
already had those powers before the constitution came into force. They
went from forming a confederation to a federation. They surrendered some
of their powers to the federal government.
Quite a few powers. They gave up sovereignty. There is no nation of
New York. It is a state within the nation The United States.
Nobody said each state was a nation.
Idiot troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 06:14:59 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
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.
I the present company, I hardly count as right-wing.
As for the substance of the discussion: On a great number of subjects,
the states are/have the supreme power.
Non sequitur. States are granted certain powers by the federal
Constitution. That doesn't make them sovereign. It makes them
subject to federal law.
Actually, I don't think that is the correct way to put it. The states
already had those powers before the constitution came into force. They
went from forming a confederation to a federation. They surrendered some
of their powers to the federal government.
Quite a few powers. They gave up sovereignty. There is no nation of
New York. It is a state within the nation The United States.
What is a nation? Do the Indian nations count?
But regardless of which version is more accurate, historically, the fact
still remains that the states have sovereignity over some fields,
Doublespeak. You try to equate sovereignity with authority. They're
not the same thing.
Actually, they are. Sovereignity means supreme power or authority,
according to my dictionary.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 05:13:18 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b18b47$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
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.
The concept of split or joint or limited sovereignty traces to Montesquieu.
Any polity that separates powers between branches, or any federal system,
embraces it. Ray has been out of touch for a while.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPTFreedm" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 01:29:42 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman wrote:
CPTFreedm wrote:
---snipped---
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
Usenet conversations do that from time to time. You are correct in that
Sovereignty, in the U.S. resides at both the Federal level and the State
level. Any/all sovereignty surrendered by the States to our Federal
Behemoth were (mostly) by plan at the inception of our Constitution and
clearly and specifically delineated.
My understanding of the EU is for it to eventually also be a "Federal"
type of structure. One can watch the European countries struggle with
issues of "sovereignty".
The main point illustrated is that "Ray" is pretty generally clueless as
to the form, nature and contructs of his own (I'm assuming he's
American) country's governance.
CPT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
18 Dec 2005 09:46:14 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're talking
about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that grants
a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
_________________
The Texas Constitution
Article 1, Section 23
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in
the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the
Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the
wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
18 Dec 2005 09:49:58 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9730DD788254Floneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're talking
about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that grants
a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
Rights aren't granted. They are recognized.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
18 Dec 2005 10:59:10 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9730DD788254Floneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting
or forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any
weapon.
I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're
talking about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that
grants a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
Rights aren't granted. They are recognized.
Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something you
feel very sure about.
Well prove it, Number Two Loon.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 07:45:24 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9730E9D656BA9loneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote:
news:Xns9730DD788254Floneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting
or forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any
weapon.
I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're
talking about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that
grants a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
Rights aren't granted. They are recognized.
Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something you
feel very sure about.
So you believe that your right to life, free speech, a fair trial, etc., only
exist at the whim of your government masters?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 03:03:24 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9730E9D656BA9loneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote:
news:Xns9730DD788254Floneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> said:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law
restricting or forbidding the right to purchase, own, or
carry any weapon.
I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're
talking about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that
grants a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
Rights aren't granted. They are recognized.
Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something
you feel very sure about.
So you believe that your right to life, free speech, a fair
trial, etc., only exist at the whim of your government masters?
I just asked you to prove that use of the word "grant" is
disallowed when discussing constitutional rights.
So prove it, Number Two. You should also explain how US Supreme
Court justices have no trouble using the word to indicate rights
provided by the US Constitution.
_____________________
What the Court does is to make it possible for any one of
the many legislative powers to be used to wipe out or modify
specific rights granted by the Constitution, provided the
action taken is moderate and does not do violence to the
sensibilities of a majority of this Court. The examples
where this concept of Due Process has been [356 U.S. 44, 83]
used to sustain state action 4 as well as federal action, 5
which modifies or dilutes specific constitutional
guarantees, are numerous. It is used today drastically to
revise the express command of the first Clause of 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. A right granted by the Constitution -
whether it be the right to counsel or the right to
citizenship - may be waived by the citizen. 6 But the waiver
must be first a voluntary act and second an act consistent
with a surrender of the right granted. When Perez voted he
acted voluntarily. But, as shown, 401 (e) does not require
that his act have a sufficient relationship to the
relinquishment of citizenship - nor a sufficient quality of
adhering to a foreign power. Nor did his voting abroad have
that quality.
_____
[ Footnote 4 ] See Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 ; In re
Summers, 325 U.S. 561 ; Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 ;
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 ; Feiner v. New York, 340
U.S. 315 ; Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 ; Adler v.
Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 ; Beauharnais v. Illinois,
343 U.S. 250 ; In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330 ; Breithaupt v.
Abram, 352 U.S. 432 .
[ Footnote 5 ] United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S.
75 ; American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 ;
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 .
[ Footnote 6 ] E. g., Adams v. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 275 .
PEREZ v. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), Mr. Justice Douglas
dissenting
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 04:53:05 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9731992C63A2Eloneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
So prove it, Number Two. You should also explain how US Supreme
Court justices have no trouble using the word to indicate rights
provided by the US Constitution.
You are confusing legal rights with natural rights. Legal rights are rights
enforceable in courts, and can be granted by statute, or a constitution. In
the absence of a statute to the contrary, the court will enforce natural
rights, as derived from common law.
The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, unlike rights set forth in other
national constitutions, was intended (for the most part) to codify certain
natural rights. By being so codified, they become legal rights. Thus they
are *granted* (as legal rights) by the Constitution. But they have a moral
basis which temporally precedes and morally supercedes that document.
As for the basis of "natural" rights, see "What the Heck are Rights," here:
http://www.newliberalreview.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 01:30:12 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel <loneweasel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9730E9D656BA9loneweaselyahooco@204.153.244.170:
Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something you
feel very sure about.
Well prove it, Number Two Loon.
Try the Declaration of Independence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 11:58:37 AM |
|
|
Deuteros 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?
If your saying that ALL Senators are Senators that ignore ALL of the
Constitution ALL of the time THEN you have set your argument up for the
big downfall SINCE all we need is one instance of attention to any part
of the Constitution at one particular time, like a quote of some
Senator quoting the Constitution in any way form or manner. Try again,
you lose.
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.
.
|
|
|
|
