posted by who knew
I don't agree that because our borders shifted and our population skyrocketed has any bearing on our freedoms. Yes times will change and new tech,
ways of travel etc will arise. Laws must be enacted to support these subjects. However they should not contradict or infringe upon our freedoms.
Would that it were so, but that is not the way life progresses. Consider the stock market, the NYSE as measured by the DJIA. New York Stock Exchange
and Dow Jones Industrial Avenge. The DJ Co. also owns the Wall Street Journal
. Rupert Murdoch is trying to buy it. Ugh! A joey turned Joseph
Goebbels 2. That’s not good. Stock markets are as old as the Phoenicians, the Greeks and Romans. Ship owners would sell shares in an upcoming voyage
and on its return, divide the profits with the investors. OTOH, if the ship sank, not an uncommon occurrence, the investors lost their money but the
shipowner had money for a new ship.
The single greatest and most significant accomplishment of American industry in the 19th century was the construction of the trans-continental
railroad. Launched in Washington by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and finished in Utah under U.S. Grant in 1869. A mix of private and public enterprise not
exceeded until the Panama Canal of the early 20th century.
The privately constructed historic railroad depended not only on Federal land grants for its large profits, but it needed large sums of cash more
immediately to pay for labor and materials, the cash to be raised in stock markets around the country; San Francisco, Chicago, New York City and
elsewhere. Trouble was, just two rules applied in 19th century stock markets - laissez faire - hands off - and caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.
ISO’s, Initial Stock Offerings, were expected to exaggerate but many if not most outright lied. The phrase, “blue sky” came into existence to
say the “blue sky” is the limit, that is to say, there is no limit on what the sellers will say or claim. Insider trading was the norm, not the
illegal act it is today as Martha Stewart will tell you. In the 19th century stock markets, there were no laws - other than the standard laws against
theft and fraud - regulating the selling of stocks and bonds. “You pays your money you takes your chances.”
In 1934, the Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC - was set up to bring regularity and trust to the market. Today there are 100s if not 1000s of
rules to follow, forms to file and standards that must be carefully adhered to or the threat of jail can be real.
So what is freedom worth? To the seller. To the buyer.
As for the religious freedom act states that congress can not pass a law that will burden one's religious beliefs. It really doesn't need to go
much further than that. [Edited by Don W]
Well W/K, I don’t know about that. Sounds OK but it has a couple soft spots. “Burden” is a very elusive and vague word. It covers many
circumstances. What one man might regard as a burden another man might see it as an opportunity. If a law is so vague that ordinary people cannot know
what is allowed and what is not, it can be held unconstitutional for vagueness because it cannot be fairly enforced.
“Religious beliefs” is also ambiguous as is evidenced by the issuance of more than 11,000 IRS 501(c)(3) registrations for charitable (including
religious) organizations. This designation is necessary so donors can claim a deduction for their gift on their tax returns. My point is that there
are at least 11,000 different ways to view “religious belief” in America. That makes it too vague, too ambiguous to be enforced.
Unless there is more detail in the 1993 law, it sounds like it should have been a Joint Resolution or expression of Congressional sentiment and not
designated as a law.
[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]