Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Shark, the most misunderstood aspect of the US Constitution is that its primary purpose is to limit the power and scope of the federal government, not grant rights to the citizens.

[ECCMac]

George,

The Constitution does not grant rights, it affirms those that the authors of the Constitution believed were natural, and needed to be protected:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

George,

The Constitution does not grant rights, it affirms those that the authors of the Constitution believed were natural, and needed to be protected:

Shark, the most misunderstood aspect of the US Constitution is that its primary purpose is to limit the power and scope of the federal government, not grant rights to the citizens.


I think I said that?

[ECCMac]

Shark, the most misunderstood aspect of the US Constitution is that its primary purpose is to limit the power and scope of the federal government, not grant rights to the citizens.


I think I said that?

Sorry I missed your meaning...thanks for setting me straight.

[ScareCrow57]

Although I am undoubtedly the most intelligent person most of you will ever encounter, when I have limited knowledge of a subject, I admit it. I have limited knowledge of the subject of offshore drilling. But I can't seem to remember a major oil spill that occurred from a drilling rig. Anecdotally, I have heard about a major spill in like 1968. But in my adult life, there apparently hasn't been one.

If that is true, wouldn't that make offshore oil drilling incredibly safe and environmentally friendly? There wasn't even a major spill post-Katrina. Of course, that would provide even further proof that Pelosi is a fool.

Secondly, I have an aquaintance who regularly fishes in AK in the area where the Valdez oil spill occurred. He reports that the area is cleaner, more beautiful and has an abundant array of fish since the oil spill. There is no evidence of the spill. I am not advocating having an oil spill to spark a makeover, but I think it shows that these horrible incidents don't mean the end of life as we know it.

That was until I came along

Some things just into the category of too easy, sorry George

But on to the topic. Methods have improved considerably. What gets me is it is environmentally OK to drill in other parts of the world and pay a premium price, yet we can't drill our own oil.

I saw a piece a day or so ago that said the USGS is usually way low when they estimate the amount of oil under the ground. That being said there is a whole bunch of oil waiting for us north of the arctic circle

[scfire86]

Shark, the most misunderstood aspect of the US Constitution is that its primary purpose is to limit the power and scope of the federal government, not grant rights to the citizens.

I would go one step further and state a primary purpose is to protects the rights of the minority.

For example. There is nothing more reviled in my lifetime than the accusation of being a communist (although several on this board have accused me of just that). But the Constitution allows one to be a member of the communist party and permits freedom of speech for that purpose of the individuals who believe in that as an ideology.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I would go one step further and state a primary purpose is to protects the rights of the minority.

For example. There is nothing more reviled in my lifetime than the accusation of being a communist (although several on this board have accused me of just that). But the Constitution allows one to be a member of the communist party and permits freedom of speech for that purpose of the individuals who believe in that as an ideology.

No. The Constitution protects the rights of EVERY citizen, regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, political ideology or any other way that an American could be classified. EVERY US citizen.

[txgp17]

I would go one step further and state a primary purpose is to protects the rights of the minority.

Agreed, but what is the smallest minority?



















The individual.

For example. There is nothing more reviled in my lifetime than the accusation of being a communist (although several on this board have accused me of just that).

Well, it's hard not see strong similarities between some of the positions of the politically liberal, and that of traditional communism.

[scfire86]

No. The Constitution protects the rights of EVERY citizen, regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, political ideology or any other way that an American could be classified. EVERY US citizen.

True enough. But it protects the Rights of all groups from having their rights abridged by the group with the majority.

IE. If there were a group that came to power believing slavery of a certain group was the correct thing to do the Constitution would prevent that from occurring.

[ScareCrow57]

True enough. But it protects the Rights of all groups from having their rights abridged by the group with the majority.

IE. If there were a group that came to power believing slavery of a certain group was the correct thing to do the Constitution would prevent that from occurring.

That is funny. The colonist (including Washington and Jefferson) had slaves. So those people who created the constitution believed in slavery, and hence would not want to prohibit it. The constitution prohibited alcohol (18th amendment) and then it was repealed (21st amendment). The constitution prohibited slavery (13th amendment) ; so I'm not so sure that the constitution couldn't be amended again to put slavery back in place.

But the worst amendment of all 16 (passed in 1913) for income tax. Imagine that 150 years without it and the country did well. In the next 100 years we have gone downhill and are continuing to slide. Question; Who are they protecting with this beauty?

[ECCMac]

That is funny. The colonist (including Washington and Jefferson) had slaves. So those people who created the constitution believed in slavery, and hence would not want to prohibit it. The constitution prohibited alcohol (18th amendment) and then it was repealed (21st amendment). The constitution prohibited slavery (13th amendment) ; so I'm not so sure that the constitution couldn't be amended again to put slavery back in place.

But the worst amendment of all 16 (passed in 1913) for income tax. Imagine that 150 years without it and the country did well. In the next 100 years we have gone downhill and are continuing to slide. Question; Who are they protecting with this beauty?

You should read how the Supreme Court ruled on that Amendment...it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[scfire86]

That is funny. The colonist (including Washington and Jefferson) had slaves. So those people who created the constitution believed in slavery, and hence would not want to prohibit it. The constitution prohibited alcohol (18th amendment) and then it was repealed (21st amendment). The constitution prohibited slavery (13th amendment) ; so I'm not so sure that the constitution couldn't be amended again to put slavery back in place.

It would certainly be an interesting exercise in futility.

The ownership of slavery is one of the many paradoxes of several of our Founding Fathers.

As far as taxation. The Constitution allows for congress to do that. I never understood why an ammendment was necessary.

[ECCMac]

It would certainly be an interesting exercise in futility.

The ownership of slavery is one of the many paradoxes of several of our Founding Fathers.

As far as taxation. The Constitution allows for congress to do that. I never understood why an ammendment was necessary.

Not on income, and any priviledges not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved for the states...

[scfire86]

Not on income, and any priviledges not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved for the states...

Art I.
Section. 8.
Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The courts have ruled that means Congress can levy taxes and spend it on just about anything.

[flamewalker25]

During my senior year in college where I earned a bachelor's in Political Science our semester-long assignment was to perform a presentation on the Bill of Rights pertaining to whether the Bills GRANT the citizenry said rights, or whether they INSURE said rights. Some very interesting discussions were produced from this idea. My contention was that the Bill of Rights insure those rights, not grant them. That they are rights inherent to all of man, from God, and that the Bill or Rights protected these specific rights from future encroachments. I would be interested in what everybody's opinion is on the matter.

Concerning the Constitution protecting minorities. On a previous post somebody mentioned the Federalist Papers. In this book one of the overriding ideas was the detrimental effect that factions, minorities or special interests, will have upon a country. It basically reads that if a country begins treating certain members of the citizenry differently than others, then the country will soon be faced with more and more factions as time progresses. Rather than being able to focus on what is best for the country as a whole, the government divert more and more attention to the growing number of factions. This is exactly what the US is facing today. Rather than everybody being an American we have African-American, Latino-American, gays, lesbians, Native American, etc. Nobody is entitled to special treatment. The government is not in existence to hold a person's hand and walk them through life. Each person should be expected, and able, to make their own way. If they can't, then there are ways to get help i.e-churches, family, neighbors, etc. I do think that in certain instances the government should be an avenue that somebody can pursue if they have fallen on hard times. Once they get the help they need then that's it, no more freebies. Get back on your feet and support yourself. Our government has become so absurdly gigantic that I'm sure our founding fathers are turning over in their graves. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats are at fault for this.

We have become a nation of cry babies that is always seeming to look elsewhere for answers or somebody to blame, and I'm freaking tired of it. When did men stop acting like men?? Nut up and get your nose to the grind stone just like most people before you.

Sorry for the digression from Nancy "I've had too much plastic surgery" Pelosi.