Article V of the United States Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Article V of the United States Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Term limits could also shorten the time it would take to enact needed legislation rather then bogging it down in commities for years.
Show me they thought things would stay the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
They didnt make predictions, they knew things would change. It didnt matter if the change was 5 years or 500, they knew things would change. Do you think Thomas Jefferson thought we would go to the moon and back?
So you think the Government gave us electricity, telephone, planes, trains, and automobiles? You think the 2 World Wars werent worth fighting for? You dont think the Founders would think that the Country they helped found wouldnt prosper and flourish? You think the government was the cause of ending deadly diseasesQuote:
You know, 50 states stretching from ocean to ocean...the end of slavery, the emancipation of women, the Civil War, electricity, telephone, automobiles, trains, planes, two world wars, an increase in population from a few million to 300 million, transformation from agrarian to urban, life expectancy doubled just to name a few. The end of monarchy as they knew it, the end of many of deadly diseases -- small pox, typhoid, polio and the cure for others.
Think of how many lives that the atom bomb has saved compared to how many its killed.Quote:
The atom bomb.
Article V of the United States Constitution.Quote:
Where are these provision for these?
They didnt predict it they provided for it.Quote:
The Founding Fathers were just men. Men who created a great document, yes. But they were not Supermen who could predict the future.
Blue, I do not agree (although that doesn't seem to be something allowed here much these days!)
The Founding Father were men, some slave owners, all very intelligent. They wrote a great document.
I do not believe they were supermen who could imagine the world today. Any more than we can imagine what the world will be like in another 200 years.
To fall back on the "original intent" (when it works in your favor) just doesn't work for me. The original intent was for that time and that place. We need to be intelligent enough to adapt it to fit the world we live in.
But one last question before I leave you to your original intent...why do you label people who hold different opinions than you do? Why the "leftie" crap?
Of course you dont agree, but you never explain why you dont agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
The Founders knew they couldnt predict the future, that is why they wrote the amendment process into the Constitution. The Constitution, as they wrote it, is the base of our laws to be added to as needed not to be interpretted to mean things not intended by the writers. They intended the doccument itself to change, not its meaning.
They werent supermen, they were smart men.
Now show me where Original Intent works against my favor.
It is a good generalization of those on the left, same as right wing nut job is a good description for Rush, Hannity and O'ReillyQuote:
But one last question before I leave you to your original intent...why do you label people who hold different opinions than you do? Why the "leftie" crap?
The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted December 15, 1791.
This is often referred to as the forgotten Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I find this extremely interesting.
The 9th amendment may be the forgotten amendment, but I refer to the 10th as the trashed amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Nice catch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Quote:
Standing alone, the Ninth Amendment does not make any specific law unconstitutional. It is an explanation, not a command -- like the FAQs found on many Web sites. In this case, the Frequently Asked Question is: "The Bill of Rights provides a list of specific rights that are protected from invasion by the federal government. Does this mean that the federal government can violate other rights if they aren't on the list?" The Ninth answers, "No. The Bill of Rights is not complete. Other rights exist, and the federal government must respect them." Indeed, as a supporter of the Constitution pointed out at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, "Our rights are not yet all known," so an enumeration was impossible. While it is true that history often fails to provide clear proof of what the Framers believed, there are exceptions. The Ninth Amendment is one of them.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Not sure where that quote is from. What I find interesting is that it seems so vague, yet can encompass a multitude of interests.Quote:
Standing alone, the Ninth Amendment does not make any specific law unconstitutional. It is an explanation, not a command -- like the FAQs found on many Web sites. In this case, the Frequently Asked Question is: "The Bill of Rights provides a list of specific rights that are protected from invasion by the federal government. Does this mean that the federal government can violate other rights if they aren't on the list?" The Ninth answers, "No. The Bill of Rights is not complete. Other rights exist, and the federal government must respect them." Indeed, as a supporter of the Constitution pointed out at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, "Our rights are not yet all known," so an enumeration was impossible. While it is true that history often fails to provide clear proof of what the Framers believed, there are exceptions. The Ninth Amendment is one of them.
In combination with the 14th, it seems to infer a right to privacy. Justice Goldberg used it as the centerpiece for his concurring opinion in Griswold vs. Connecticut back in 1965.
I found the quote here, clicky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Thank you.
Kind of a bittersweet end for me and other Alaskans. Source.
While I am glad Stevens seems to be losing his seat I am saddened by Mayor Begich taking it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ADN
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Care to explain why you feel that way?
Its now official, with a bigger lead then votes left to count, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich is now JR Senator for Alaska in the United States Senate.
Begich will now have to Go Along To Get Along in the Senate, maybe if he votes "present" enough he can be the next president.
ETA: Now, do to seniority, some other AH will controll Ted's committee seat.
Do we really want people controlling appriation spending based on how long they have been able to stay in office, over their merits and ideals?