Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 15, 2018, 01:36:56 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which of the following things are unconstitutional? on: June 27, 2005, 12:25:27 pm
Quote
1. Ten commandments displays
Constitutional
no Article 1 of the US bill of rights says that government can not promote one religion over another... it does not restrict on the rights of people from displaying

Quote
2. "In God We Trust" on the currency
Constitutional... sorta
Seeing how the US does not own the Federal Reserve and the Money they print is theirs  In God We Trust is not unconstitutional because its really not our money... however anything out of the US Tres Dept with the statement is unconstitutional

Quote
3. School prayer

Constitutional... sorta
well seeing how federally funded school is unconstitutional...  if it was a private school like all schools should be.... no problem perfectly constitutional... since its federally funded its unconstitutional ... unless of course it was done by individual and not a forced religion

Quote
4. United States Air Force

 Unconstitutional

when created if fell under the US Army (constitutional)  The Air Corps was then rebranched into a new arm of the service....without an Amendment to the US Constitution to create such a branch  it is unconstitutional

Quote
5. Federal income tax
Constitutional.. but very bad

since the 16th Amendment it is legal.. however prior to 16th it was unconstitutional... Federal government had to go to the states to get the money for the federal government... by creating a federal income tax system it created a direct taxation something unconstitutional before

Quote
6. Federal Reserve

110% unconstitutional   

Federal Reserve act of 1913 created the Federal Reserve.  Congress basically gave their power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof" something the Constitution does not grant them to do... also only gold and silver coin is used to pay off debt... since the Federal Reserve does not mint gold and silver coinage anymore its just another reason its not constitutional

Quote
7. Interstate Highway System
constitutional... sorta

while the Constitution grants the federal government the ability to create toll roads... the interstate is hardly a toll road controlled by the federal government... the way they created the IHS is unconstitutional.. internal improvements was not granted by the constitution to the federal government

Quote
8. Federal Drug Prohibition
UnConstitutional

Congress had to pass an amendment in order to take away alchohol during the 20's... if failed.. crime rised... people wanted their alchohol... so it was repealled... The feds not wanting to go through the hard Amendment process again and look like a fool just having to repeal it .....they just pass laws this time to create prohibtion on drugs... same results... less hassle.

Quote
9. A two term president being elected vice president

UnConstitutional

Amendment 12 states
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."  2 term limit is made by the 22nd amendment... so 2 terms and you are done ... you can be in a cabinet.. run in congress.. or Supreme court.. but no more pres/vp
2  General Discussion / History / Re: The Day they Drove Old Dixie Down on: April 29, 2005, 09:21:18 pm
And I'm sure you loved the 100 years of Jim crow laws that followed?

you do realize that Jim Crow like laws began in the North before the South ever adopted any?

3  General Discussion / History / Re: How would you have treated confederate leaders? on: January 30, 2005, 11:04:12 pm
The "Right" to secede from the Union would belong to the States not to the people since it is the States that are members of the Union not individuals. This is of course presumes that it exists, which it doesn't. Also consider that the Ninth Amendment in no way affected the original construction of the Constituion, so my interpretation of the Supremacy Clause continues to stand.
right.. but its the people who created the state governments so its the people speaking through their elected officials that declare their rights to secession... as they did in 1860 in SC... special voting for secession

Well as you said when the original constitution was written the Supremacy clause might trump any right of secession.  So as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." 

So to make sure that there was no misconception the 9th and 10th amendments were bookends of what the federal government could and could not regulate on.

since like I said before the 9th states that the federal government can not assume power that is not explicitly written and since secession is not explictly written, it is left to the states or to the people as article 10 states.

Quote
I don't think its naive - they were interested in forming an ever closer Union. I don't think they would have built a system that would allow for States to leave just because they don't like the results of an election.

and no one expected the federal government to have a federal army big enough to stop the state from leaving either.. that was the biggest misconception of both Hamilton and Madison.

The supremacy clause can be used as an argument against secession only if the Constitution requires a state to remain part of the union. The federal government can not assume powers it was not given.  So if the Constitution doesnt state explicitly that the states must be in a perpetual union it can not apply otherwise.  Nor does it apply to a state that has left the Union. Obviously.

4  General Discussion / History / Re: How would you have treated confederate leaders? on: January 30, 2005, 08:15:26 pm
you are also forgetting the 9th amendment that says that the rights listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in no means complete. 

The right of Secession has been and always will be the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government that does not work for them. 

To think that the states would willingly sign the Constitution and give up their right of secession... the right they just fought and died for...is very nieve.

This was a big bone that needed to be picked because of the Articles of Confederation that created a perpetual union.  The Constitutional Convention brought up that same issue during the writing of the Constitution.  The motion to create a line about a perpetual union in the Constitution was shot down.

In 1814, many Northern Federalist tried to secede from the union.  Many people including Madision was displeased about their notion but no one ever questioned their right to secede if they choose to

Even Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America discribed the union  of states as a voluntary agreement of States and that anyone wishes to leave the union is free to do so.

West pointers are taught in school the right of secession.  This is a government regulated school teaching future officers that its the right of the people to secede.

I dont understand how anyone can sit here and believe that our founding fathers would give up the right to alter or abolish our own government if in the future it no longer works...It goes against everything they sacrificed against the British  and contradicts everything they have written

5  General Discussion / History / Re: What president violated the Constitution the most? on: January 30, 2005, 07:28:56 pm
In Lincoln's case, I believe his violations of the constitution were generally for the good of the country. 


wow so you think that suppension of Habeas corpus for all citizens was needed and justified?  Especially considering that everyone prior to that including the supreme court and Congress knew that only the legislative branch had the right to do such a thing.  Thousands of civilians were rounded up and thrown into military forts and most of them were arrested  for just showing displeasure over how Lincoln was handling the war.  Prisoners were not being told why they were being arrested.  No investigation for crimes commited and no trials were ever held

Marshall law was declared and there was no Constitution.

What about the over-running and over-throwing of thousands of newspapers and other forms of press that may not have supported the south but questioned Lincoln's actions?  do you think the First Amendment only applies if we all agree?

We all know today how big an effect the press has on us today... the same thing can be said back then


What about Sherman's march to the sea?... killing, raping, stealing and burning all that stands in his path.  Sherman wasnt alone.. there were other Generals doing the same thing.  That was definitely good for the country as well...right???  Lincoln knew it was going on...he may even have given the order to do so

The arrest warrents for Chief Justice Taney who stood up to Lincoln and told him his actions were totally 100% unconstitutional... luckily or unluckily the Chief Justice died before he could be arrested.

The arrest and deportation of a member of Congress.

The creation and over stepping of the economic system at the time by creating inflated fiat money "green backs" .  Issued by then Secretary of the Treasury Chase so that Lincoln could bypass both Congress and the banks to finance his crusade.  Later as Chief Justice Chase, he declared the green backs that he made Lincoln issue as unconstitutional... for the first time in 80 years the US currency had money that was slightly inflated.

Created the first income tax... also unconstitutional and was later after the war deemed as such.

He overtook the free election of the state of Maryland and Delaware and replaced them with people of his own party.  Because Elections werent secret Lincoln ordered his troops to arrest anyone who held a colored ticket for one of the other guys and were prohibited from voting.

When a person usurps his powers even if meant for good... there will always be people who are after him who will one up their predecessor and do things not so good with them. 

Lincoln set the stage for all usurping of the Constitution we have today.

Lincoln saw powers in the Constitution that no other President before him saw. Not Jefferson, Polk,  not even Madison when Washington DC was being burned ever saw powers in the Constitution that Lincoln did.

Father Abraham is the true father of the Current United States.. the founding fathers of 1789 and the government  they created died when the South did.

Lincoln may or may not have been the worst.. thats debatable... but there is no denying that it started a chain reaction throughout the 20th Century of a larger central government. The people and the states are just pawns for the Federal government .  The complete opposite of what the founding fathers invisioned
6  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What is your opinion on the electoral college? on: October 14, 2004, 12:23:08 pm
I would much rather see it go back to the split EC votes where the winner of a district gets the vote and not the winner take all system we have now in the majority of the states

If the split EC votes by district were implemented the worry about 1 state being the deciding factor would be gone... so 2000 wouldnt have seen florida being the scape goat

7  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nobel Prize winner in Economics says we need more tax cuts! on: October 13, 2004, 12:48:04 pm
tax cuts are only good when the government also cuts spending.... Bush's tax cuts were meaningless because of this factor
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re:Bush vs. Badnarik on: September 27, 2004, 03:30:32 am

Explain, I'm interested to hear if you think a Government could function without proper taxation.

See 1788 to 1861...  its not like the idea of a government working solely on duties, imposts and excises tarriffs on imports is anything new to this country
9  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign / Re:Where is the anger over this!? on: August 21, 2004, 06:38:58 am
oh yippee for thought police ... its this same notient that gets second grade kids expelled for using his finger as a gun and going pow pow to a classmate...or a high school kid expelled for writing a poem about violence... after all we  know what they are thinking.. and by golly they are certainly gonna act upon those thoughts ... right?  so lets stop them before they do it

thoughts are never a crime ... the crime is if you act upon those thoughts... writing down thoughts are not crimes.. the act upon those thoughts is a crime... geez people if thoughts are crimes then Im sure ever single one of us should be locked up for one thing or another..

I know for a fact there isnt one man in this forum that hasnt thought about some hot young underaged teenage girl and wanting to get in the sack... hey if thoughts are a crime.. you just commited at least 2.

you know how many movies there are out that depict a character based off of a real life person and other characters doing something to that person... should that be a crime as well.. after all we all know who the character is supposed to be in real life.. shouldnt the writer be locked up?

yelling fire in a theatre, yelling bomb in an airplane, and yelling Im gonna kill the president..does in fact fit the description of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"   It was that crappy supreme court case (Schenck v. United States) that claimed it wasnt....and I dont care how many times you try to justify that case...  its only when property or people get hurt/damaged as to when a crime is commited... then and only then is the person who yelled fire guilty of an actual crime

I am utterly appauled by anyone who tries to justify the interworkings of one's mind as a crime... rather than the act of acting on it... Im especially appauled by anyone who claims they are a libertarian and agrees with any law that makes thoughts a crime

10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re:Badnarik vs. Kerry or Bush on: July 30, 2004, 02:51:47 am
if it werent for federal government intervention, how long would it have taken the south to desegregate?

and if it werent for the federal government there would never have been the "seperate but equal" idea...  see  Plessy vs Ferguson.... its that case that created the ok for segregation
11  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:The 269-269 EV Thread on: July 30, 2004, 02:40:23 am
They could, but defect, but I've never heard of an elector switching his vote to the other candidate.



http://www.electionreform.org/ERMain/priorities/ec/data/faithless.htm

there is a list of electors who changed their vote
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re:What percentage of the country is socialist? on: July 13, 2004, 04:05:05 am
I just think a lot of Americans dont know any better... they may not be socialist or fascist. But Socialism and Fascism are whats they see on a daily basis in this country and is considered the norm.

Where as if this was 1788, the norm would be about self-responsibilty and decentralized government.  Anyone talking about federally ran welfare, federally mandated money redistribution, or federally ran retirement plan would be considered majorly out of main stream America.

Its all about the zeitgist of the times and what the American public allows the government to get its hands on

In 1788 Federal government couldnt touch anything not in the Constitution.  In 2004  the Federal government cant touch anything the public opinion wont allow him to.
 
13  General Discussion / History / Re:Alexander Hamilton on: July 12, 2004, 08:52:15 am
Hamilton was an economic wonder for the new nation. The federal reserves building should be named for him.

tell me you are joking right?  Hamilton hated with a passion fiat currency.. its bad enough they put his head on their worthless paper money but to add his name to a building promoting the US fiat system is a big disgrace for this man.
Quote
"To emit an unfunded paper as the sign of value ought not to continue a formal part of the Constitution, nor even hereafter to be employed; being, in its nature, pregnant with abuses, and liable to be made the engine of imposition and fraud; holding out temptations equally pernicious to the integrity of government and to the morals of the people."
~A. Hamilton

However I'm not a huge fan of Hamilton.  Nor am I a fan of his is idea of a central bank or a strong central government. If this country had gone to what Hamilton wanted we would be living in a Monarchy or an Aristocracy.  He hated the King of England but loved the idea of a Monarchy.  He thought that the rich and well-born should have a permanent role in controlling the masses.

There was also talk about corruption.  In 1792 he managed to get himself out of a congressional hearing on misuse of federal funds by shifting public focus to his adultery with Maria Reynolds.

Hamilton was all about Hamilton...Major womanizer and near the end of his life he even lashed out at his own Federalist Party and John Adams and commited what many considered political suicide by doing so.  
 
A very bright man but his inner demons got the best of him
14  General Discussion / History / Re:What Side is Responsible for the Civil War? on: July 08, 2004, 04:03:11 am
what a great example of legislation from the bench

Chase never addressed the constitutional question of the legality of secession, just declared it illegal.

from the verdict:
"It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interest, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessaries of war, and received form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to be 'perpetual." And when these Articles were founded to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?,"

Nevermind that the radification of the Constitution nullified the Articles of Confederation and made it nothing more than a historic document

This baseless argument is like having the King of England claim Parliament has no right to legislate because before the Magna Carta the King had all the power to legislate.

Professor David P. Currie, University of Chicago Law School, in, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years,1789-1888" says, "In Texas v. White the Court went out of its way to embrace the Radical position that secession and all acts that served it were illegal, that the seceding states had nevertheless forfeited their rights, and that Congress could determine under the guarantee clause how they were to be governed. It did so essentially by fiat, without serious consideration of the opposing arguments ... In Texas v. White, Chase finally succeeded in writing most of the Radical philosophy of Reconstruction into the Constitution."
15  General Discussion / History / Re:What Side is Responsible for the Civil War? on: July 08, 2004, 02:53:53 am
In the you learn something everyday category, we have Texas V. White, which did establish there is no right of secession.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/380/

The relevant bit:

The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Not saying the ruling was right or wrong, but that the Supremes have answered the question.

surprise surprise.. the courts rule right after the war, in 1869.  And look at that the court also ruled this verdict in a federally occupied Reconstructed state in which they controlled the government
16  General Discussion / History / Re:What Side is Responsible for the Civil War? on: July 03, 2004, 07:22:21 pm
Its pointless to debate the  " who was right type of argument"... the main point that this argument boils down to is did the Southern states have the right to secede from the Union?... thats the root of this whole problem

When the Articles of Confederation were instituted as the first federal government for the newly free and sovereign states, it kept the states sovereignty yet it forbade any state from seceding from the perpetual union. This contract was one of the issues that the Constitutional Convention saw as a problem because this (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) kept the states from seceding unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles.  This would be a direct violation of the same principles that gave them their freedom from England.

The King of England's repressative signed the Treaty of Paris to end the Revolutionary War... He had to sign 13 times to surrender England to all newly free 13 individual states.

So from the beginning each state was free and soverign. even the Articles of Confederation agreed with this piont...The question remains whether or not after signing the Constitution did their soverignty disappear.

The new contract, the Constitution never used the words perpetual union nor did it explicitly forbid the use of secession as a mean for the states to end the union. In fact the perpetual union clause from the Articles of Confederation was raised in the convention and all delegates voted no to a perpetual union in the US Constitution.  This meant that each state indeed had the right to secede from the union.... the next time the term perpetual union was uttered was by Lincoln to justify his attacks.
         
There are some that argue that New England believed that the United States was a perpetual union and that they believed that the states were never allowed to leave the union. This was a total myth.  The War of 1812 in fact sparked a fire under the feet of the Federalist Party of New England.  Practicing their freedom of speech, these men declared their intentions to make New England secede from the union.  Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession or tried to stop them with force.

Even the events up to the Civil war, men and women through out the United States believed that it was every right as a state to leave the Union when they feel it no longer suits their purpose.  In 1860, the southern states decided to follow in the footsteps of our founding fathers and their New England brethren in 1814, and secede from the union.  Lincoln and many in his Republican party however didn’t see secession as a right and forbade the southern states from doing so.  With a Congress full of Republicans, Lincoln was able to get away with a lot of unconsitutional acts.... Lincolns act to suppress the seceding states were questionable then as they are now.

After the war, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison.   He was never given a trial for treason to the United States because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court told President Andrew Johnson that if Jefferson Davis were placed on trial the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids the secession of states. Despite the fact that Jefferson Davis wanted a trial, one was never held.

So the question remains do you really believe that a state does have a right to secede from the United States?

If states have the right to secede, then the war against the South was unconstitutional.. since Lincoln never went to congress and war was never declared.

If the States of the Union do not have the right.. then why would our founding fathers do such a binding contract to the states when in fact all of the founding fathers believed that secession is a right of men.

To deny such a right would be denying all of what our country was founded on.. it would be saying that what our fore fathers did to win their freedom from England was just as wrong as what the South did to the Union and therefore we should look down at what they did.


17  General Discussion / History / Re:Progressive laws repealed... on: June 24, 2004, 05:17:32 am
not really a law.. the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for radio broadcasting

Though if Democrats had their way it would have been law a long time ago
18  General Discussion / History / Re:Greatest Founding Father on: June 24, 2004, 05:07:52 am
I wanted to include him, but I ran out of room. He did make a huge contricution by not just supporting the Bill of Rights, but allowing Jefferson to write them. The Bill of Rights was his idea, but Jefferson wrote them.

No George Mason wrote them.  With the help of James Madison, the father of the Constitution.

Madison was in constant correspondence with Thomas Jefferson,the father of the Declaration of Independence, whom at the time was in France.  Which is why Thomas Jefferson  didnt get the chance to write the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

19  General Discussion / History / Re:Greatest Founding Father on: June 23, 2004, 04:07:20 pm
what about George Mason the author of the Bill of Rights?
20  General Discussion / History / Re:What Side is Responsible for the Civil War? on: June 23, 2004, 03:58:52 pm
I notice that no one mentions the fact that Davis had sent men to Washington to try and talk a peaceful solution before the first shot was fired and that his men were turned away by Lincoln.  The south didnt want a war... they didnt even want to secceed but they sure as hell didnt want the north to step on their rights and tax the living crap out of them.




21  About this Site / The Atlas / Re:The Mock Election on: June 20, 2004, 02:16:13 pm

I don't want your vision of "progress". CSpan is not a major network. Before you guys came on here I was saying Badnarik who? Just like most voters on Nov 2 will say.

Ballot in the voters mind :


BUSH   Republican
KERRY  Democrat

badnarik
nader
peroutka

Unless you actually use the system as it is and then try to reform it (and believe me I'm all for it!) once elected. Badnarik has about a .5% shot of getting elected. Don't throw your vote away.

explain to me how voting in how one believes is throwing a vote away... this perception you throw out is like the vote belongs to either Kerry or Bush and that I dont have a say in the matter... the vote is mine and mine alone...after all I voted for Bush in 2000 I was one of those blind voters who wasted my vote for voting for someone that didnt hold my ideals and look what he did... he went back on a lot of his promises.. why should I trust him again?

where is privitized SS?
where is that belief that US should not be nation building?
where is downsizing the government?
where are speading cuts?

these were all said by GWB that he would do

I voted for Bush because I didnt think I had a choice.. then in 2001 I found Libertarianism... and I wont vote for either democrats or republicans again until they can prove they want smaller government
Pages: [1]


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines