reply to post by mmmeat
However, if as idiotic a statement as 'the Constitution being raped and/or plundered' is made, it's not at all unreasonable to ask where this
information came from.
And I gave you specific documents or laws which I consider to be such. Of course, it would take an understanding that the Constitution is not a
literal document, but an interpreted document that is, depending upon your own pre-established set of beliefs, going to represent one thing and not
For instance, the Constitution does not give the Federal Governmnet the right to dictate schools, let alone a national standardization of schools such
as the "no child left behind act', this would be considered a pillaging of State rights, and thus individual rights as their right to have a school
system not dictated at a national level has been compromised.
Especially as I've not hear that any document written by our forefathers had been sexually violated or stolen.
Your incapacity to comprehend figurative speech is your own issue, friend, not my own.
I don't disagree, necessarily. However, the Federal government has full right and authority to pass Federal law - which affects ALL states and
territories of the U.S.A. - and that includes individuals, corporations and other areas.
It has the right to pass a Federal Law, but is not exempt as it perceives its self to be, from being constrained by the Constitution and more
importantly, the states (who make the Union which the Fed is needed) .. Just because they "can" and sometimes "do" pass laws does not make them
"legal" or at the very, very least, moral as far as abiding the constitution or strict constitutionalism..
As a pilot, I would prefer that the Federal government regulate how things are supposed to happen in U.S. airspace
An example of something that is "inter" and not "intra" state.. for example, the Fed also regulates High Ways, and if your from Ohio you know the
history of our High Way bills.. The Federal government withheld all high way funding until we changed our drinking age from 19 to 21.
would be an example of duties not regulated by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government is supposed to deal with things that are exchanged between states, air traffic being one of course, as is all interstate
commerce, military, border disputes, foreign policy, interstate crimes, state protection, currency, federal taxation (not income), and insuring all
states abide by the constitution.
The Federal Government was not supposed to replace the state governments.
As an American, I'd really prefer that the Federal government secure our borders - and do what they say they're going to do - rather than leave
things up to the states. States should regulate interstate traffic, but the Federal government should secure international borders.
So would I.. Perhaps if they stopped worrying about which ear mark will be placed in which bill, something could get done. Corruption however has a
nasty habit of prohibiting real progress and instead, digress.
The Patriot Act hasn't done anything other than remove liberal roadblocks to national security. As a general rule, American citizens haven't been
affected by the Patriot Act, other than we don't have airplanes crashing into buildings, people detonating themselves in Starbucks, and things in the
U.S. continue to be secure.
If someone wanted to, they would have no problem attacking the United States, the Patriot Act has done little to stop that, as the biggest agencies
still have severe problems communicating.
Being right isn't arrogance.
Being right is arrogance, when in a political atmosphere, there is no right and wrong as rights are almost always precieved by both sides. We both
feel we are right, so who is right? Only an arrogant man would put his nose in air and declare all other ideologies incorrect in the light of his own
thinking, that of which you have done, sir.
By the way, welcome to ATS, "brother".