| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"atheist@home" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2005 07:37:52 PM |
| Object: |
OT Scary or what? |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
17 Sep 2005 03:10:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
atheist@home#1554
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
17 Sep 2005 06:55:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
Yes.
Bill Clinton wanted police to search homes in public housing projects
for contraband without warrants.
He was irritated when federal courts nixed the idea.
Funny thing, those on the left claim that those on the right are a
threat to freedom and those on the right claim the same about those on
the left.
All the pricks are dangerous.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
18 Sep 2005 04:07:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:55:18 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
Yes.
Bill Clinton wanted police to search homes in public housing projects
for contraband without warrants.
He was irritated when federal courts nixed the idea.
Funny thing, those on the left claim that those on the right are a
threat to freedom and those on the right claim the same about those on
the left.
All the pricks are dangerous.
But some are more dangerous than others.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
18 Sep 2005 04:30:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:07:19 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:55:18 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
Yes.
Bill Clinton wanted police to search homes in public housing projects
for contraband without warrants.
He was irritated when federal courts nixed the idea.
Funny thing, those on the left claim that those on the right are a
threat to freedom and those on the right claim the same about those on
the left.
All the pricks are dangerous.
But some are more dangerous than others.
Ain't it so.
Those are the ones with the most followers.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 08:24:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:30:43 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:07:19 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:55:18 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
Yes.
Bill Clinton wanted police to search homes in public housing projects
for contraband without warrants.
He was irritated when federal courts nixed the idea.
Funny thing, those on the left claim that those on the right are a
threat to freedom and those on the right claim the same about those on
the left.
All the pricks are dangerous.
But some are more dangerous than others.
Ain't it so.
Those are the ones with the most followers.
Excrement draws lots of flies.
atheist@home#1554
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 02:30:23 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 08:24:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:30:23 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
Good point. I had forgotten about that.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 06:40:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:30:23 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
Interesting point.
The delegates were *not* told to create a new constitution.
Neither were the confederate delegates who met in Montgomery Alabama
after seccession.
Confederate delegates went so far as to assume the responsibility of
appointing Jefferson Davis interim president.
Freedom may not be able to survive the politicians whose arrogant lust
for power is constant and unending.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 07:16:31 PM |
|
|
"atheist@home" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:30:23 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
Interesting point.
The delegates were *not* told to create a new constitution.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states that the union of states under the Articles
was to be a perpetual union.
Neither were the confederate delegates who met in Montgomery Alabama
after seccession.
Confederate delegates went so far as to assume the responsibility of
appointing Jefferson Davis interim president.
Freedom may not be able to survive the politicians whose arrogant lust
for power is constant and unending.
You seem to be confusing the Confederation -- the union of 13 former colonies during the
Revolutionary War -- with the Confederacy -- the union of 11 rebel states during the Civil War.
The Articles of Confederation formed the first United States of America. Article XIII stated that
these Articles were to form a perpetual union. All states were required to observe the Articles
as extant until and unless ALL of the states agreed to changes, changes that could only be
proposed by Congress (then, a one house body where each state had only one vote.) The
Constitution took effect with the consent of only 9 states and was not proposed by Congress.
Since you mention the Confederacy, it should be noted that the states' decision to thow away the
rule of law to expedite the dissolution of the "perpetual union" of the Articles was one of the
chief arguments used by rebel states to dissolve their union with the United States. Like I said,
the precedent was set by the Founding Fathers and is still in effect.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 11:48:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:16:31 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
"atheist@home" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:30:23 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
Interesting point.
The delegates were *not* told to create a new constitution.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states that the union of states under the Articles
was to be a perpetual union.
And deliberately left out of the Constitution which has caused all
sorts of arguments over the right of secession.
Neither were the confederate delegates who met in Montgomery Alabama
after seccession.
Confederate delegates went so far as to assume the responsibility of
appointing Jefferson Davis interim president.
Freedom may not be able to survive the politicians whose arrogant lust
for power is constant and unending.
You seem to be confusing the Confederation -- the union of 13 former colonies during the
Revolutionary War -- with the Confederacy -- the union of 11 rebel states during the Civil War.
No, it was a comment on how politicians in general assume powers above
and beyond those assigned to them.
Those of the confederacy were no different than the people they
disagreed with.
The Articles of Confederation formed the first United States of America. Article XIII stated that
these Articles were to form a perpetual union. All states were required to observe the Articles
as extant until and unless ALL of the states agreed to changes, changes that could only be
proposed by Congress (then, a one house body where each state had only one vote.) The
Constitution took effect with the consent of only 9 states and was not proposed by Congress.
Fascinating.
Since you mention the Confederacy, it should be noted that the states' decision to thow away the
rule of law to expedite the dissolution of the "perpetual union" of the Articles was one of the
chief arguments used by rebel states to dissolve their union with the United States. Like I said,
the precedent was set by the Founding Fathers and is still in effect.
How do you view it as still in effect?
I don't disagree but would like particulars regarding your view.
Also any book recommendations.
I have quite a few on the subject of the founding but don't recall any
of them addressing this particular issue directly.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
20 Sep 2005 01:26:52 PM |
|
|
"atheist@home" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:16:31 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
"atheist@home" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:30:23 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
Interesting point.
The delegates were *not* told to create a new constitution.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states that the union of states under the Articles
was to be a perpetual union.
And deliberately left out of the Constitution which has caused all
sorts of arguments over the right of secession.
Neither were the confederate delegates who met in Montgomery Alabama
after seccession.
Confederate delegates went so far as to assume the responsibility of
appointing Jefferson Davis interim president.
Freedom may not be able to survive the politicians whose arrogant lust
for power is constant and unending.
You seem to be confusing the Confederation -- the union of 13 former colonies during the
Revolutionary War -- with the Confederacy -- the union of 11 rebel states during the Civil War.
No, it was a comment on how politicians in general assume powers above
and beyond those assigned to them.
Those of the confederacy were no different than the people they
disagreed with.
The Articles of Confederation formed the first United States of America. Article XIII stated that
these Articles were to form a perpetual union. All states were required to observe the Articles
as extant until and unless ALL of the states agreed to changes, changes that could only be
proposed by Congress (then, a one house body where each state had only one vote.) The
Constitution took effect with the consent of only 9 states and was not proposed by Congress.
Fascinating.
Since you mention the Confederacy, it should be noted that the states' decision to thow away the
rule of law to expedite the dissolution of the "perpetual union" of the Articles was one of the
chief arguments used by rebel states to dissolve their union with the United States. Like I said,
the precedent was set by the Founding Fathers and is still in effect.
How do you view it as still in effect?
As you said, the matter is politicians reaching beyond their legitimate power. Case in point: When was
the last time the 10th Amendment was actually enforced? Without wrinkling my brow, I can rattle off at
least a dozen ways where it is being violated right now, either directly (as in federal marijuana law
overturning state laws permitting the growth and distribution of marijuana for medical use) or
indirectly (the federal drinking age of 21 is set by requiring states to pass a law or get no money
for maintaining federal highways.) Then there is the fact that the United States Supreme Court has
heard only, I think, two out of at least 20 challenges to parts of the "Patriot" Act, leaving the rest
to languish without a constitutional resolution. And let us not forget that Congress and ONLY Congress
has the authority to declare war, even though almost every president since the 1940s has engaged in
major "non-wars," with Shrub's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq being only the latest such examples.
The rule of law? Who gives a ***** when the rule of law stands in the way?
I don't disagree but would like particulars regarding your view.
Pure cynicism, with enough blind hope to not yet give up fighting.
Also any book recommendations.
Mostly, my views have evolved over the last 25 years. You might want to look at "A People's History of
the United States" by Howard Zinn. The Wikipedia is also a decent reference, especially if you turn to
an article's discussion page and take in the arguments accuracy and neutrality.
I have quite a few on the subject of the founding but don't recall any
of them addressing this particular issue directly.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
22 Sep 2005 02:05:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:26:52 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
"atheist@home" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:16:31 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
"atheist@home" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:30:23 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Soviet, yes. As an olde sig. of mine stated; American was
a grand experiment that would have worked, but it was dismantled by
those sworn to defend and uphold it.
It has been convincingly argued by American historians that tne of the very first acts of
Congress after the end of the Revolutionary War was to illegally overthrow the existing
government (the Articles of Confederation) for a new one (the Constitution.) That precedent
remains active.
Interesting point.
The delegates were *not* told to create a new constitution.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states that the union of states under the Articles
was to be a perpetual union.
And deliberately left out of the Constitution which has caused all
sorts of arguments over the right of secession.
Neither were the confederate delegates who met in Montgomery Alabama
after seccession.
Confederate delegates went so far as to assume the responsibility of
appointing Jefferson Davis interim president.
Freedom may not be able to survive the politicians whose arrogant lust
for power is constant and unending.
You seem to be confusing the Confederation -- the union of 13 former colonies during the
Revolutionary War -- with the Confederacy -- the union of 11 rebel states during the Civil War.
No, it was a comment on how politicians in general assume powers above
and beyond those assigned to them.
Those of the confederacy were no different than the people they
disagreed with.
The Articles of Confederation formed the first United States of America. Article XIII stated that
these Articles were to form a perpetual union. All states were required to observe the Articles
as extant until and unless ALL of the states agreed to changes, changes that could only be
proposed by Congress (then, a one house body where each state had only one vote.) The
Constitution took effect with the consent of only 9 states and was not proposed by Congress.
Fascinating.
Since you mention the Confederacy, it should be noted that the states' decision to thow away the
rule of law to expedite the dissolution of the "perpetual union" of the Articles was one of the
chief arguments used by rebel states to dissolve their union with the United States. Like I said,
the precedent was set by the Founding Fathers and is still in effect.
How do you view it as still in effect?
As you said, the matter is politicians reaching beyond their legitimate power. Case in point: When was
the last time the 10th Amendment was actually enforced? Without wrinkling my brow, I can rattle off at
least a dozen ways where it is being violated right now, either directly (as in federal marijuana law
overturning state laws permitting the growth and distribution of marijuana for medical use) or
indirectly (the federal drinking age of 21 is set by requiring states to pass a law or get no money
for maintaining federal highways.) Then there is the fact that the United States Supreme Court has
heard only, I think, two out of at least 20 challenges to parts of the "Patriot" Act, leaving the rest
to languish without a constitutional resolution. And let us not forget that Congress and ONLY Congress
has the authority to declare war, even though almost every president since the 1940s has engaged in
major "non-wars," with Shrub's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq being only the latest such examples.
Congress can shut the president down anytime they like.
And the fact that they don't sometimes do it is troublesome.
They can also shut down the Federal courts but don't do that either.
But members of congress are very good at using the president and the
courts as scapegoats.
I think it comes in pretty handy for them.
Do you think we are in a seriously dangerous situation regarding the
government?
What would you see as a solution?
The rule of law? Who gives a ***** when the rule of law stands in the way?
I agree.
The federal courts and politicians often read the Constitution in much
the same way believers read the Bible.
They see what they want to see.
Funny how such a simple document can be made to seem far more
complicated than it is.
I don't disagree but would like particulars regarding your view.
Pure cynicism, with enough blind hope to not yet give up fighting.
I don't think I have any hope left that it's not going to turn out
very badly for future generations of Americans.
Also any book recommendations.
Mostly, my views have evolved over the last 25 years. You might want to look at "A People's History of
the United States" by Howard Zinn. The Wikipedia is also a decent reference, especially if you turn to
an article's discussion page and take in the arguments accuracy and neutrality.
I have "A People's History" but am not a fan of Howard Zinn.
I'm afraid his politics colors his historical narratives to the point
that I don't trust him.
I have some history books, including a college textbook that distort
history to ridiculous degrees for political purposes.
Want to copy the Declaration of Independence, change a few words and
send it to Washington?
Btw, I watched a segment of Hannity and Colmes one night during which
the presumably well educated guests were arguing for and against
amending the Constitution to say "All people are created equal" rather
than "All men are created equal."
They kept switching back and forth from the Constitution to the
Declaration in a confused manner without suggesting once how we go
about amending the Declaration which of course is were the words are
contained.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
I also watched a segment of a show on MTV I believe it was, where some
folks had set up a booth at a college as well as walking around asking
students to sign a petition demanding that the government put a stop
to "women's sufferage."
They interviewed some students who said they agreed that women had
suffered enough and it was time to do something about it.
And over 50% of Americans believe the sun orbits the Earth and a very
large number apparently can't name a Supreme court justice or the
attorney general.
And there lies the problem as far as changing things.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
13 Sep 2005 03:07:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1894 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
17 Sep 2005 03:10:39 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:07:48 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
The US Government and the 'Justice' System.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
17 Sep 2005 07:09:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:07:48 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
The US Government and the 'Justice' System.
Government period.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-intrude16.html
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
18 Sep 2005 04:06:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:09:10 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:07:48 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
The US Government and the 'Justice' System.
Government period.
The above is 'Government period.'
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-intrude16.html
Scorn is good. Ridicule is better.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
18 Sep 2005 04:29:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:06:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:09:10 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:07:48 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
The US Government and the 'Justice' System.
Government period.
The above is 'Government period.'
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-intrude16.html
Scorn is good. Ridicule is better.
Heh.
And how about that?
A democrat who is worried about government intrusion on our lives.
Must be a mistake eh?
If you don't believe that ask a conservative ;-)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
19 Sep 2005 08:23:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:29:02 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:06:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:09:10 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:07:48 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
The US Government and the 'Justice' System.
Government period.
The above is 'Government period.'
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-intrude16.html
Scorn is good. Ridicule is better.
Heh.
And how about that?
A democrat who is worried about government intrusion on our lives.
Must be a mistake eh?
If you don't believe that ask a conservative ;-)
Heh. The Rethugnican government with the self-generated conservative
label are radical liberals.
atheist@home#1554
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: OT Scary or what? |
17 Sep 2005 06:58:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:10:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:07:48 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:37:52 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/10/MNG4FELBG51.DTL&feed=rss.news
The Bush administration can continue to imprison a U.S. citizen
arrested in Chicago three years ago in a terrorism investigation
without charging him with any crime, a federal appeals court ruled
Friday in an opinion written by a judge under consideration for the
Supreme Court.
Who exactly is this "They" when they say: "They Hate Our Freedom" on
TV?
The US Government and the 'Justice' System.
Yep.
Everytime the politicians do something for us they take something
away.
Chipping away a piece at a time.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
