Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
September 17, 2014, 08:38:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat(1)  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Something's wrong with today's government.  (Read 9147 times)
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2009, 10:52:36 AM »

Quote
This includes the States.

true.  the problem comes with interpretation by the courts. the constitution grants a few rights,
Here is where you have hit upon the most oft used "loophole" in the Miranda decision. The Constitution itself as well as the original BOR doesn't "Grant" or "Secure" a single right to the citizens. It only recognizes those that were seen to already exist, and proposes to "protect" them. My view is that ALL levels of government should respect those protected rights from violations from any quarter.

Quote
but primarily lists the limitations of the federal government.  all other decisions are left to the states....or that was the plan.  a state, for instance, could not reinstate slavery.  things like the death penalty, marriage, etc. belong to the states.  abortion should have been left entirely to the states, but the courts miraculously discovered a right to privacy that no one had previously found.  it's like magic what they can do!!   evil
Necessary rights seem to be continually "discovered". "slavery" and "male domination over females" was the norm of the day - as the dual standard of those were "discovered" steps were taken to reconcile those discrepancies. The paradigm exclusions do not necessarily define the rule, nor do they cancel it.
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2009, 10:57:55 AM »


clearly, many just and right actions have been taken in our history that are debateably unconstitutional.  think of court decisions that allow interracial marriage, desegrigation of schools...these were not legislated, nor were they voted on "by the people".  would we be better off if we waited until such issues were voted on?  

deknow
Government does not "allow" anything specifically in a free society. It only "restricts" those actions seen to be detrimental. And that should be as few as possible. The mindset that looks at what Government "allows", I'm not convinced, really understands what freedom really is.
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2009, 11:08:14 AM »

Quote
Necessary rights seem to be continually "discovered". "slavery" and "male domination over females" was the norm of the day - as the dual standard of


you can directly infer from the constitution and declaration of independence, that slavery did not fit with our constitution. amendments were undertaken to right a wrong.  as for woman, i have often wondered if giving them the right to vote was not a very big mistake!  smiley

it takes some convoluted thinking to infer a right to privacy.  never mind that it is vague and can be interpreted differently according to the whims of the judge....which i guess is how law gets made from the bench.....
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2009, 11:39:18 AM »

you can directly infer from the constitution and declaration of independence, that slavery did not fit with our constitution. amendments were undertaken to right a wrong. 
True. It was only hidden by the paradigms of the day.

Quote
as for woman, i have often wondered if giving them the right to vote was not a very big mistake!  smiley
Interesting self depreciating view.

Quote
it takes some convoluted thinking to infer a right to privacy.  never mind that it is vague and can be interpreted differently according to the whims of the judge....which i guess is how law gets made from the bench.....
Some, but not a lot. A cursory 4th Amendment reading leads one to think that some of that was indeed the intent.
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
tlozo
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 33

Location: Catskills, NY


« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2009, 11:47:38 AM »


clearly, many just and right actions have been taken in our history that are debateably unconstitutional.  think of court decisions that allow interracial marriage, desegrigation of schools...these were not legislated, nor were they voted on "by the people".  would we be better off if we waited until such issues were voted on?  
deknow

Why do you trust nine unelected people with life tenure(US Supreme Court) more than the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?

Dred Scott v Sandford(1856)-Supreme Court ruled that Scott was not a free man but a slave
Plessy v Ferguson(1896)-Supreme Court upheld mandated segregation
Korematsu v United States(1944)- Supreme Court upheld forced internment of Americans
Kelo v New London(2005)-Supreme Court upheld forced transfer of private land from one private owner to another


Logged
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2009, 11:52:37 AM »


Why do you trust nine unelected people with life tenure(US Supreme Court) more than the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?

Dred Scott v Sandford(1856)-Supreme Court ruled that Scott was not a free man but a slave
Plessy v Ferguson(1896)-Supreme Court upheld mandated segregation
Korematsu v United States(1944)- Supreme Court upheld forced internment of Americans
Kelo v New London(2005)-Supreme Court upheld forced transfer of private land from one private owner to another
I don't know. Why are you referencing thoroughly overturned decisions?

But it does point out some of the reasons why I would like to see legislation be forced to survive Constitutional challenge before it can be enacted. Dred Scott was a travesty, much as Cruikshank and Presser are.
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2009, 12:33:31 PM »

Quote
Interesting self depreciating view

there have been a number of studies done on the difference in male and female decision making.  most women make decisions based on emotion before facts.  that might work when you are making decisions for the family.  it's not so good when you are making decisions for the country.  liberals tend to vote their emotions also.  i will leave the analysis to others.... evil
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2009, 12:43:50 PM »

Quote
Interesting self depreciating view

there have been a number of studies done on the difference in male and female decision making.  most women make decisions based on emotion before facts.  that might work when you are making decisions for the family.  it's not so good when you are making decisions for the country.  liberals tend to vote their emotions also.  i will leave the analysis to others.... evil
Let's just say that from what I've seen. I'd have no problem with most of your decisions. Cheesy
Regardless of what "the statistics" would say.
I also know a couple of other discussion boards that you would fit right into. And would probably result in some very interesting discussions. Cheesy
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2009, 01:30:57 PM »

i may already be there?  not so much time for it these days.  just this and the occasional comment...then when i get inspired a longer writing or two  smiley
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
dragonfly
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 468

Location: 30 mi west of DFW, Tx


« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2009, 02:48:53 PM »

there have been a number of studies done on the difference in male and female decision making.  most women make decisions based on emotion before facts.  that might work when you are making decisions for the family.  it's not so good when you are making decisions for the country.  liberals tend to vote their emotions also.  i will leave the analysis to others.... evil

I have no doubt about that, but allowing women to vote would not be a problem if we (as a country) had adhered to the original powers granted to the federal government. At the onset, federal monies were intended to be collected via taxation to cover only those responsibilities granted to them (ie interstate commerce, defense, and a couple of others). I don't believe it was envisioned that our federal dollars would eventually be paying for social programs, corporate subsidies, farm subsidies, and the long long list of special interest groups we are now paying.
If that were the case, a woman's or a liberals vote, even if based in emotion, would not be an issue. There should be NO federal tax money going toward any program that favors one individual over another.
Logged
tlozo
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 33

Location: Catskills, NY


« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2009, 04:16:42 PM »


I don't know. Why are you referencing thoroughly overturned decisions?
[/quote]

Kelo v New London still stands.
Logged
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2009, 04:22:09 PM »

i'm not sure how you think the 14th applies?

For some reason I think you keep pointing to....  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Indicating that congress of the USA can't but states can. The 14th says in Section 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This says if congress can't then the states can't.


Or have I just misinterpreted what you are saying?


The United States in this instance doesn't mean every state it means the Federal Government.  Washington DC is the United States as is Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.  Therefore citizens of the United States are those naturalized (being specially named such, not being a citizen of a state) or resident of National lands, territories, and districts.  Natural born Citizens of the individual states are United States Nationals.  If you were born in Washington DC, or one of the territories or possessions then you were born an United States Citizen.
IE: I am a natural born citizen of the State of Washington, and a United States National.
American Indians are Citizens of their respective tribe and United States Nationals, except where a treaty specifically made them United States Citizens.

States can't pass laws that change the status of a Naturalized United States Citizen.
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2009, 04:32:39 PM »

there have been a number of studies done on the difference in male and female decision making.  most women make decisions based on emotion before facts.  that might work when you are making decisions for the family.  it's not so good when you are making decisions for the country.  liberals tend to vote their emotions also.  i will leave the analysis to others.... evil

I have no doubt about that, but allowing women to vote would not be a problem if we (as a country) had adhered to the original powers granted to the federal government. At the onset, federal monies were intended to be collected via taxation to cover only those responsibilities granted to them (ie interstate commerce, defense, and a couple of others). I don't believe it was envisioned that our federal dollars would eventually be paying for social programs, corporate subsidies, farm subsidies, and the long long list of special interest groups we are now paying.
If that were the case, a woman's or a liberals vote, even if based in emotion, would not be an issue. There should be NO federal tax money going toward any program that favors one individual over another.
Frankly, I resent the statistics and 'science' that lumps me in with morons.  Nowadays I see morons of both sexes voting stupidly - I don't think the women have a lock on it.
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
dragonfly
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 468

Location: 30 mi west of DFW, Tx


« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2009, 05:50:10 PM »

Frankly, I resent the statistics and 'science' that lumps me in with morons.  Nowadays I see morons of both sexes voting stupidly - I don't think the women have a lock on it.

I understand what you are saying, but I believe the key words are "most women". If most women use poor judgement when voting, when choosing a husband, with raising their children, does it lump you in with morons? I don't think so. I think it separates you (and me, and like-minded women) from the morons. Smiley
Logged
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 6052

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2009, 06:19:39 PM »

>>>>clearly, many just and right actions have been taken in our history that are debateably unconstitutional.  think of court decisions that allow interracial marriage, desegrigation of schools<<<<

I lived before those decisions and I've lived after those decisions. If you want something that is definitely DEBATABLE, whether they are "just and right" or not certainly is that "something". They were meant to give equal rights, not free rides. The result is anything BUT "just and right".
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2009, 09:03:23 PM »


The United States in this instance doesn't mean every state it means the Federal Government.  Washington DC is the United States as is Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.  Therefore citizens of the United States are those naturalized (being specially named such, not being a citizen of a state) or resident of National lands, territories, and districts.  Natural born Citizens of the individual states are United States Nationals.  If you were born in Washington DC, or one of the territories or possessions then you were born an United States Citizen.
IE: I am a natural born citizen of the State of Washington, and a United States National.
American Indians are Citizens of their respective tribe and United States Nationals, except where a treaty specifically made them United States Citizens.

States can't pass laws that change the status of a Naturalized United States Citizen.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourteenth+Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2009, 10:22:41 PM »

Quote
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.

right, it just means that if the constitution guarantees a right, the state can't take that right away.

 
Quote
section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws

this part is the reason we opened gitmo and why rendition has been the practice of several presidents.  it also is the reason illegals get the same benefits, etc. that legals do.  the courts have interpreted it to cover them.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2009, 10:34:57 PM »

the 14th amdt seems to say that no state can make any law to deny freedoms guaranteed in the US constitution, who would sue about that?
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2009, 11:16:34 PM »

Quote
I don't know. Why are you referencing thoroughly overturned decisions?

Kelo v New London still stands.
Where did I imply that ALL had been overturned? I really knew when I posted that that you were going to be obtuse and point that out. Even so, if there is any justice left, Kelo will not stand long.
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
tlozo
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 33

Location: Catskills, NY


« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2009, 12:19:05 PM »


Where did I imply that ALL had been overturned? I really knew when I posted that that you were going to be obtuse and point that out. Even so, if there is any justice left, Kelo will not stand long.
[/quote]

I was listing awful US Supreme Court decisions which were based on flawed opinion in response to an earlier post that justified unconstitutional jurisprudence based on just outcome. I agree Kelo should not stand but look how long Blackmuns Roe opinion stands.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.658 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page August 29, 2014, 07:54:57 PM