Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
October 01, 2014, 04:32:51 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  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Something's wrong with today's government.  (Read 9201 times)
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2009, 12:37:08 PM »

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.
US V Miller would have been a better example than Roe(v Wade), at least both sides had representation. Roe was not a bad decision, as argued. As far as the Dr/Patient confidentiality/privacy issue goes - it's actually not bad law. But most people tend to overlook the fact that Roe v Wade was decided as a privacy of information case and NOT an abortion case. But IF the concept (of Dr/Patient privacy) decided in Roe is to be a guiding factor - then Dr Kevorkian should never have been convicted either - by way of the same principles. At least in Dr. assisted deaths, ALL parties are aware and willing in the procedure. I'm not particularly fond of the abortion issue as I think that life begins at conception. But I also happen to believe a lot of other things that I'm not willing to "forbid" to anyone other than myself. But if justice is to be blind (as intended) the emotional aspect must remain held in check and only the legal issued decided. Something our newest SCOTUS nominee has freely admitted that she will not do.
Logged

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

Gender: Female
Posts: 468

Location: 30 mi west of DFW, Tx


« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2009, 06:28:30 PM »

I'm not particularly fond of the abortion issue as I think that life begins at conception. But I also happen to believe a lot of other things that I'm not willing to "forbid" to anyone other than myself.

Same here. I personally believe it is killing a human. I think it has terrible psychological and emotional repercussions on many woman, usually at later time in life. I also think the legalization of abortion should be a state-to-state issue, and I don't have the desire to see abortion made illegal across the board.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #62 on: May 30, 2009, 01:21:24 AM »

So that we are clear...
The founding fathers, the ones that wrote/signed the constitution, the ones that fought the revolutionary war for the freedoms they longed so much for that they were willing to swing from the gallows for..... Those very smart individuals.... wasted all of that time and energy.... for all that liberty.... only to allow each individual state the opportunity to take it all away if they wished to do so?

Then I guess the constitution and all the Bill of Rights there in, isn't worth the paper it is written on.  rolleyes
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: 15160


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #63 on: May 30, 2009, 01:31:43 AM »

10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

by leaving the states to adjust to the needs of the people, they gave the people the option of going elsewhere if they didn't like what a state was doing.  state, if they engage in social experimentation, only harm those in the state if the experiment fails.  if the feds do the same, they harm the whole country. 

one of our very best freedoms, is the freedom to walk away from a state that does something we don't like and can't change.  walking away from your country is a little more difficult.

jerrymac, the constitution is more about limiting the federal government, than anything else.  even in the bill of rights, many things are directed only at the feds.  congress shall make no law....etc.  you have more options with a limited federal government and states that can have freedom to do what the people of the state want.
 

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 #64 on: May 30, 2009, 02:46:03 AM »

jerrymac, the constitution is more about limiting the federal government, than anything else.  even in the bill of rights, many things are directed only at the feds.  congress shall make no law....etc.  you have more options with a limited federal government and states that can have freedom to do what the people of the state want.
But the 14th was an attempt to clarify that and tell the States that "This means you too" in that the States (particularly the reconquered States) were expected to honor and respect those recognized Rights as well.
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2009, 09:47:24 AM »

jerrymac, the constitution is more about limiting the federal government, than anything else.  even in the bill of rights, many things are directed only at the feds.  congress shall make no law....etc.  you have more options with a limited federal government and states that can have freedom to do what the people of the state want.
 

And what I am pointing out is "the Bill of Rights" is a lot of wasted ink on a wasted piece of paper because they don't protect anyone's rights if each state can take it away. What was the point of saying the fed will protect these rights OH But!!! your state can take them away. And if every state took those rights away then there would be.... what? A bunch of people running around with out any freedom proclaiming how free they are because of the Constitution.  rolleyes

Just seems to be something wrong with that picture.
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: 15160


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2009, 10:53:58 AM »

Quote
But the 14th was an attempt to clarify that and tell the States that "This means you too" in that the States (particularly the reconquered States) were expected to honor and respect those recognized Rights as well.

i don't disagree with that.  guess i'm not sure what jerrymac is getting at?

jerrymac, maybe you could give an example or something. 
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
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2009, 11:25:35 AM »

jerrymac, the constitution is more about limiting the federal government, than anything else.  even in the bill of rights, many things are directed only at the feds.  congress shall make no law....etc.  you have more options with a limited federal government and states that can have freedom to do what the people of the state want.
 

But the 14th was an attempt to clarify that and tell the States that "This means you too" in that the States (particularly the reconquered States) were expected to honor and respect those recognized Rights as well.

Kathy, you keep harping on that "CONGRESS" thing. And the 14th amendment is specifically for the first amendment (and others) And it is saying that if we (the fed) can't do it, then you (the state) can't do it either. You say a state can adopt some religion as long as it does not prohibit other religions. Can the Fed do that? Then the state can not either.

Then Brian seemed to point out that we are citizens of the state we reside in and not a citizen of the USA and therefore that does not apply to us.


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

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/
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2009, 11:49:24 AM »


Kathy, you keep harping on that "CONGRESS" thing.
Well that what an activist court will get you - US v Cruikshank is one such case that inserted the "By Congress" where it ontherwise normally had not been before.
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: 15160


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2009, 11:55:35 AM »

Quote
; 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.


i think this is the part you are talking about.  the part that is important is this:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

the courts have interpreted the 14th to mean as you said, that a state is bound by the same restrictions as the feds.  this is not exactly what the 14th says.  the unfortunate result of this misinterpretation is that more and more state rights are lost to the feds.

i don't think you could have the baptist state of georgia these days.  it would be challenged in court and the court would use the precedent of the misinterpretation of the constitution to strike it down.  this is maybe the most important point of the conversation.  the courts have become the most important part of government.  if they do not understand the constitution or if they are trying to force some kind of "social justice" from the bench, they can change forever our country.  most of the time, not in a good way.

"[Since] no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press [was] delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain and were reserved to the States or the people... Thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:381

We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388

"It is important to strengthen the State governments; and as this cannot be done by any change in the Federal Constitution (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for), it must be done by the States themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves of by the General Government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government. A weak one will lose ground in every contest." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
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
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2009, 12:02:32 PM »

Quote
; 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.


i think this is the part you are talking about.  the part that is important is this:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

the courts have interpreted the 14th to mean as you said, that a state is bound by the same restrictions as the feds.  this is not exactly what the 14th says.  the unfortunate result of this misinterpretation is that more and more state rights are lost to the feds.

i don't think you could have the baptist state of georgia these days.  it would be challenged in court and the court would use the precedent of the misinterpretation of the constitution to strike it down.  this is maybe the most important point of the conversation.  the courts have become the most important part of government.  if they do not understand the constitution or if they are trying to force some kind of "social justice" from the bench, they can change forever our country.  most of the time, not in a good way.

"[Since] no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press [was] delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain and were reserved to the States or the people... Thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:381

We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388

"It is important to strengthen the State governments; and as this cannot be done by any change in the Federal Constitution (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for), it must be done by the States themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves of by the General Government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government. a weak one will lose ground in every contest." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276

So you're saying we should have no federally guaranteed rights?  Why have a federal bill of rights if any state could take any of them away that they wanted to?  Your position doesn't make any sense to me.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #71 on: May 30, 2009, 12:09:25 PM »

So you're saying we should have no federally guaranteed rights?  Why have a federal bill of rights if any state could take any of them away that they wanted to?  Your position doesn't make any sense to me.

See? That is the question I just asked.  Undecided
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: 15160


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #72 on: May 30, 2009, 12:17:16 PM »

if i try to explain this any more, i will be repeating myself and  harming my health.

go read the documents.  read the WORDS and understand them.  it's a short and simple writing.

then, if you really want to get crazy with education, start reading the writings of the founders. 

throw a little pravda in with it.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
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
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #73 on: May 30, 2009, 12:29:52 PM »

Ok, so you're just going to ignore the question.  Oh well... I'll just thank GOD we don't live in a country where your rights can be determined state to state, or even county to county, or city to city.  Talk about chaos.
Logged
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #74 on: May 30, 2009, 12:37:51 PM »

I'll just thank GOD we don't live in a country where your rights can be determined state to state, or even county to county, or city to city.  Talk about chaos.
But your 2nd Amendment rights ARE exactly that way at the moment, and we do live in that country. Many of the other original BOR have been recognised as "Incorporated" in various SCOTUS decisions, and States and municipalities are pre-empted from enacting laws to the contrary. The 2nd is always left out of that list it seems.
(But if you are a current or former SgtMajor, then you already know this. 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: 15160


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #75 on: May 30, 2009, 01:12:09 PM »

Quote
Ok, so you're just going to ignore the question

jerrymac and i have been having this same conversation for about 2 years.  it's time to let him do his homework.

Quote
Oh well... I'll just thank GOD we don't live in a country where your rights can be determined state to state, or even county to county, or city to city.  Talk about chaos.

chaos is the term liberals apply to liberty.  the country was designed to work with state making separate laws.  the founders never envisioned a strong, centralized government.  they knew that leaving the power in the hands of the feds would eventually deny the people their rights.  a centralized government survives by sucking the life out of everyone.  to keep power, they must suppress opposition.  to fund programs, they must tax and tax again.  to control behavior, they regulate.  it is never ending. 

by leaving the main powers with the states, we were given options.  if California is going to tax me more, i can move to Idaho.  if Michigan is no longer business friendly, i can move to Mississippi.

what happens when the federal government begins to tax and regulate?  there is no place to move except Mexico.
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
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #76 on: May 30, 2009, 01:28:54 PM »

But your 2nd Amendment rights ARE exactly that way at the moment, and we do live in that country. Many of the other original BOR have been recognised as "Incorporated" in various SCOTUS decisions, and States and municipalities are pre-empted from enacting laws to the contrary. The 2nd is always left out of that list it seems.
(But if you are a current or former SgtMajor, then you already know this. Cheesy)

And you want all other rights to be trampled on as much as the 2nd amendment has?   huh

BTW, I never rose to the rank of SgtMaj in the Marines... I simply wasn't in long enough... I chose my nickname both because I had served, and because of my love of salt water aquariums, and at the time my wife and I had just returned from FL where we had a blast watching all the fish in the reef, and our favorite was the sergeant major fish.  The nickname just kinda stuck after that.
Logged
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #77 on: May 30, 2009, 01:33:08 PM »

Quote
Ok, so you're just going to ignore the question

jerrymac and i have been having this same conversation for about 2 years.  it's time to let him do his homework.

Quote
Oh well... I'll just thank GOD we don't live in a country where your rights can be determined state to state, or even county to county, or city to city.  Talk about chaos.

chaos is the term liberals apply to liberty.  the country was designed to work with state making separate laws.  the founders never envisioned a strong, centralized government.  they knew that leaving the power in the hands of the feds would eventually deny the people their rights.  a centralized government survives by sucking the life out of everyone.  to keep power, they must suppress opposition.  to fund programs, they must tax and tax again.  to control behavior, they regulate.  it is never ending. 

by leaving the main powers with the states, we were given options.  if California is going to tax me more, i can move to Idaho.  if Michigan is no longer business friendly, i can move to Mississippi.

what happens when the federal government begins to tax and regulate?  there is no place to move except Mexico.

With all due respect, we're not talking about tax rates here... we're talking about rights.  We're not even talking about laws... but rights.  while I agree that the federal government has far overstepped it's bounds, the one place that it doesn't overstep it's bounds is in applying the US Constitution and bill of rights.  I think you're trying to create a strawman here.  You're talking about things like setting speed limits, we're talking about things like denying someone their due process to plead not guilty to the charge of speeding (or any charge).  I would call it chaos if you lived in a country where you were too scared to leave your hometown in case some town you happened to pass through had laws on the books that outlawed being 'x' (insert whatever you want there) with a penalty of death, and you didn't even have any way for you to defend yourself in court because they had no court system... chaos.  But if I'm understanding your position correctly, there's nothing stopping that from happening.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 02:05:11 PM by SgtMaj » Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2009, 01:36:40 PM »

In the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2 we find this,

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

And then the 14th says,

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Research Supremacy Clause.
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/
Vibe
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 264


Location: Little Rock, AR.


« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2009, 01:39:38 PM »

And you want all other rights to be trampled on as much as the 2nd amendment has?   huh


LOL. No what I "want" is quite the opposite. But I'm not naive enough to ignore what "is" either.

LOL. Kathyp, if I read that right, I think I agree. Not only have the "bounds" not been oversteped..The plate has not been "stepped up to" either.
Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -
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 1.191 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page August 29, 2014, 11:05:32 PM