1. #376
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    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.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  2. #377
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ECCMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Near somewhere on the front range
    Posts
    60

    Default

    George,

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
    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

  3. #378
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ECCMac View Post
    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?
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #379
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ECCMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Near somewhere on the front range
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    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.

  5. #380
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    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
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 08-14-2008 at 05:33 PM.

  6. #381
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #382
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  8. #383
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by txgp17; 08-14-2008 at 09:31 PM.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  9. #384
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #385
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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?

  11. #386
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ECCMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Near somewhere on the front range
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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.

  12. #387
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #388
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ECCMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Near somewhere on the front range
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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...

  14. #389
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ECCMac View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #390
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SW Mo
    Posts
    50

    Default

    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.

  16. #391
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SW Mo
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    Yeah, like the friggin' death tax!! What a croc-o-crap!!

  17. #392
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Exactly!!! I agree 1000% (extra 0 added for emphasis) with flamewalker25. I couldn't have said it better myself (lord knows I tried).

    Lookout George, Someone else in the intelligence race

  18. #393
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ECCMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Near somewhere on the front range
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.

    Ahhh, thanks for the quote...

    Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons just a bit. While I do not contend that Income Tax will ever change, I do contend that the Supreme Court has ruled after the ratification of the 16th amendment that it does not include wages...

    Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?". The answer to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

    The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.

    So, if it is not a direct tax, then it is still an indirect tax, but, possibly, no longer a duty. Then; "What kind of tax is the income tax now?" In the "previous ruling" referenced above, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 US 1 (1916), the court stated:"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise ..." , and "...taxes on such income had been sustained as excises in the past...". specifically, "Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."
    Food for thought. Nothing more, nothing less.

  19. #394
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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 one should be treated differently. All laws should be enforced equally, and no one should have special protection under law.

    Most of these "hate crime" laws and whistle blower laws protect a small number of people while only reiterating what is already expressed in other laws.

    Also recall that the Constitution initially counted a slave as not worth a full man, however this has changed with time.

    No one should be treated differently or protected more than anyone else, regardless of race, religion, ethos, sexual preference, gender, or favorite color.

    Constitutional law from circuit courts on up to SCOTUS decisions have affirmed this, yet the useless twit slef-loving, pandering morons in Washington do this nonsense for votes, and no other reason.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  20. #395
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhvfd1214 View Post
    Can someone tell me when Farve and Pelosi are supposed to compete in the three legged race at the Olympics?
    Couldn't say for certain.My current nightmare is Barack Obama naming Nancy Pelosi as his running mate while mariachi bands cover Barry Manilow songs.

  21. #396
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,312

    Default

    Well, I think I found out why the Madame Speaker wanted to preempt any discussions on offshore drilling, and why she’s really against it.

    She says she wants to save the planet, but that’s just a ruse.

    According to Pelosi’s 2007 financial disclosure form, she lists “Assets and ‘Unearned Income’” between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. CLNE is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens.

    She stands to gain a substantial return on investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  22. #397
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ECCMac View Post
    Ahhh, thanks for the quote...

    Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons just a bit. While I do not contend that Income Tax will ever change, I do contend that the Supreme Court has ruled after the ratification of the 16th amendment that it does not include wages...

    Food for thought. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Thank you for that. However, in The Glenshaw Glass case (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, just about any increase in wealth is considered taxable.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #398
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaSharkie View Post
    No one should be treated differently. All laws should be enforced equally, and no one should have special protection under law.

    Most of these "hate crime" laws and whistle blower laws protect a small number of people while only reiterating what is already expressed in other laws.

    Also recall that the Constitution initially counted a slave as not worth a full man, however this has changed with time.

    No one should be treated differently or protected more than anyone else, regardless of race, religion, ethos, sexual preference, gender, or favorite color.

    Constitutional law from circuit courts on up to SCOTUS decisions have affirmed this, yet the useless twit slef-loving, pandering morons in Washington do this nonsense for votes, and no other reason.
    That's what was so comical aboiu tthe issue Gore was making about the Byrd case when he was running against Pres. Bush. Gore was criticizing the Pres. because he would not support hate crime legislation. Byrd was murdered ostensibly because he was homosexual. As Texas has been known to do, they executed Byrd's killer. What in the world was the hate crime charge going to do? Give him CPR, bring him back and then kill him again?

    Aggressively enforce the laws we have and you won't need legislation to protect small segments of the population.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  24. #399
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SW Mo
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post

    Aggressively enforce the laws we have and you won't need legislation to protect small segments of the population.
    My sentiments exactly! I just wish we would enforce the laws in place regarding illegal immigrants.

  25. #400
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flamewalker25 View Post
    My sentiments exactly! I just wish we would enforce the laws in place regarding illegal immigrants.
    But if the enforce the laws we have now, then the politicians won't have anything to do.

    Imagine if they started enforcing immigration law.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FF safety/chicken BBQs
    By princessAJ in forum U.S. States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 12:57 PM
  2. Chicken Fry on Saturday 6-24
    By rustyknobbs in forum Illinois
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 08:19 AM
  3. Subservient Chicken
    By EMTSteve in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 02:22 PM
  4. Keithsburg FD Fish & Chicken Fry
    By emtbecka in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2003, 09:13 AM
  5. August Fire Scenario #2: BBQ Chicken Anyone?
    By Dalmation90 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-08-1999, 10:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register