Nobama going ot ignore the law again????

Citizen said:

Now, that is an interesting point. Bill Clinton was impeached over White House BJ's. What's the penalty for ****ing the whole country while sitting in the Oval Office? I guess "it depends on the meaning of the word sex."

Click to expand...

That's funny.

Citizen said:

Regarding the tide in the Senate. The deck was stacked against it--starting from the constitutional convention. Its rigged so that only so many are up for election during each cycle. I don't recall exactly, but I think it would take 18 years (senators have 6 yr terms) to completely replace the entire senate, 12 years to replace two thirds. Something like that. It was a deliberate arrangement by the constitutional convention. You can't possibly get rid of all the criminals at once. They're entrenched but good.

Click to expand...

That's depressing.

Citizen said:

Now, that is an interesting point. Bill Clinton was impeached over White House BJ's. What's the penalty for ****ing the whole country while sitting in the Oval Office?

Click to expand...

Point taken, but let's be accurate: Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

Citizen said:

Regarding the tide in the Senate. The deck was stacked against it--starting from the constitutional convention. Its rigged so that only so many are up for election during each cycle. I don't recall exactly, but I think it would take 18 years (senators have 6 yr terms) to completely replace the entire senate, 12 years to replace two thirds. Something like that. It was a deliberate arrangement by the constitutional convention. You can't possibly get rid of all the criminals at once. They're entrenched but good.

Click to expand...

Ah, but you must remember that the senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures, not elected by the people. The states also had the option to recall senators that were not being their true representative, as they were charged with representing the state whence they came, not the people of said state.

Do not blame the framers for the way it is today. It was the ratification of the 17th amendment that moved an enormous amount of power to the federal government and allowed it to grow into the monster that it is today. The states actually reliquished most of the power that they had at the federal level upon it's ratification. The only power they have left is Article V (good luck on them doing this). Well, they have the courts, which is really no power at all.

Citizen said:

I guess "it depends on the meaning of the word sex."

Click to expand...

The entire inquiry was staged. How long does it take to say, "Mr. President, these are yes or no questions: Did you have x, y, or z sex with Miss Monica Lewinski? Did you engage in any form of sexual contact with her?" Instead, the dodge consisted of "Did you have sex with her?" combined with the non-yes/no answer of "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman." That's like saying "Did you drive that car?" with a response of "I did not drive that car faster than the speed limit."

Regarding the tide in the Senate. The deck was stacked against it--starting from the constitutional convention. Its rigged so that only so many are up for election during each cycle. I don't recall exactly, but I think it would take 18 years (senators have 6 yr terms) to completely replace the entire senate, 12 years to replace two thirds. Something like that. It was a deliberate arrangement by the constitutional convention. You can't possibly get rid of all the criminals at once. They're entrenched but good.

Click to expand...

Senatorial elections are once every two years. With 6-year terms, 1/3 could be ousted at the 2-year point, a second 1/3 could be ousted at the 4-year point, and the final 1/3 ousted at the 6-year point. Thus, you could flush the entire cadre in six years, but you'd only need four years to obtain a 2/3 majority.

That's IF, of course, half those electing the Senate had a clue as to what their choices were doing to our country.

rodbender said:

Ah, but you must remember that the senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures, not elected by the people.

Click to expand...

It's nice to know the Founding Fathers were smart enough to ensure the states had a significant input into the makeup of our government's leadership. I think a great many things would have gone far better today if senators were still appointed by each state's legislators.

The states also had the option to recall senators that were not being their true representative, as they were charged with representing the state whence they came, not the people of said state.

Click to expand...

I agree. The People already had representatives in Congress. They were (and still are) called "Representatives." Fancy that... :banghead: The 17th was enacted because three states failed to elect a senator around 1855 to 1857. Thus, because a small percentage failed to do the right thing, they changed the Constitution for everyone, including those majority of states who were doing the right thing?

That is so arse-backwards it's not even funny. Unless, of course, the real reason behind the 17th had nothing to do with the failure of California, Indiana, and Deleware, but rather, that was merely the excuse used to vastly increase the fed's power/control base by yanking it away from the not-so-easily-influenced state legislators and putting it in the hands of the easily-influenced people.

Do not blame the framers for the way it is today. It was the ratification of the 17th amendment that moved an enormous amount of power to the federal government and allowed it to grow into the monster that it is today. The states actually reliquished most of the power that they had at the federal level upon it's ratification. The only power they have left is Article V (good luck on them doing this). Well, they have the courts, which is really no power at all.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

KBCraig said:

Point taken, but let's be accurate: Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

Click to expand...

Hey! Quit spewing facts all over my biting humor! :cuss:

Thanks for the clarifications and corrections, guys. Of course, you're right.

since9 said:

The 17th was enacted because three states failed to elect a senator around 1855 to 1857. Thus, because a small percentage failed to do the right thing, they changed the Constitution for everyone, including those majority of states who were doing the right thing?

That is so arse-backwards it's not even funny. Unless, of course, the real reason behind the 17th had nothing to do with the failure of California, Indiana, and Deleware, but rather, that was merely the excuse used to vastly increase the fed's power/control base by yanking it away from the not-so-easily-influenced state legislators and putting it in the hands of the easily-influenced people.

Click to expand...

The 17th was actually ratified in 1913. The reason given for needing it was that there were wealthy people buying senate seats from the state legislatures (corruption) and that there was a logjam in the congress and they could get nothing done. This was also the year that the 16th (income tax) was ratified and the year of the federal reserve. Oh, BTW, there was also a big push for socialism in this time frame. A presidential candidate running on the socialist platform garnerred double digits in the elections of 1904, 1908, 1912, and ran from prison in 1916 and received almost 10%. This was also about the time that public education got started. A very hefty (or unhealthy) dose of the communists manifesto, I'd say.

SFCRetired said:

Just one small correction: SCOTUS findings are not the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law and always has been.

SCOTUS role is supposed to be deciding whether or not a law or action is constitutionally valid.

For what it is worth, both of those were gleaned from my wife's citizenship studies. I would suggest that there are people on this forum and in our country who would do well to download and study those citizenship questions. I was born here, lived most of my life here, served in our armed forces, and I still learned a lot from her studies.

As far as the present occupant of the White House: My memory goes back to Harry S. Truman and the only presidents who come close to being as big a total loss were Jimmy Carter and Wm. Jefferson Clinton. Of those two, Clinton was the worst. Carter was well-meaning, but indecisive and even timid when it came to wielding the power of his office.

Click to expand...

incorrect. SCOTUS interpretation is law unless congress passes an amendment or SCOTUS changes their ruling.

Daylen said:

He helped give us The Republic instead of Monarchy, its up to us to keep it a republic.

Click to expand...

doesn't it irritate you when hillary and obama and others call our nation a democracy???? it's so terrible that the people in charge of running it, don't even know what it is!

hammer6 said:

doesn't it irritate you when hillary and obama and others call our nation a democracy???? it's so terrible that the people in charge of running it, don't even know what it is!

Click to expand...

Well... What's the difference between Democracy and a 'Republic'? when I went to school, teachers always made us refer to the US as a "Federal Republic" rather than a Democracy; keeping in mind this was well within a red state.

hammer6 said:

doesn't it irritate you when hillary and obama and others call our nation a democracy????

Click to expand...

Not really, as they're simply affirming their own ignorance. If I'm in a public setting, such as watching the TV at a doctor's office, that's when I usually let out a guffaw and say, "Boy, they really are idiots, aren't they? Everyone knows the United States is a Republic." Says so right there in our Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

...it's so terrible that the people in charge of running it, don't even know what it is!

Click to expand...

I think they do, but it's not synonymous with their party, so they use a false term which is synonymous with their party. That's probably one of the reasons they love to ignore the Constitution in general.

DrakeZ07 said:

Well... What's the difference between Democracy and a 'Republic'?

Click to expand...

"A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government, at least in theory, and where offices of state are not granted through heritage." - Source

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law." - Source

It is utterly idiotic for anyone to believe we're a democracy when only 1 out of 600,000 Americans have "more or less direct participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law." I've heard some people claim we're a "representative democracy" while others say we're a "democratic republic." Neither are necessary, as we meet the classical definition of a "Republic."

sudden valley gunner said:

The constitution is not "interpretive" in that you can change the meaning. You interpret how it might apply to modern situations like the fact they didn't have computers or hand guns so how does our natural right the government is not supposed interfere with apply in those situations. The document is something that simply limits what the government can do, unfortunately since its founding the only president who didn't expand their powers in any way has been Jefferson.Interpret is not meant to distort the meaning of the law to mean the exact opposite. Other wise why have a constitution at all? Why not just say we are not free and the government can do what it wants? Or that people can vote away natural rights by a majority?

I find it frustrating that people only want these principals to be applied to what they want. This is not meant to bash gay folks, but am using this as an example. Homosexuals want their right to have a partner of the same sex. They have fought hard and have won many battles on this. Yet when a popular vote in California bans gay marriage many homosexuals who believe in "democracy" immediately use the courts to try to overturn that as unconstitutional. (and rightly so) You can't have it both ways, we either have natural rights and liberty with a limited government or we have tyranny either by political aristocrats or by mob mentality of democracy.

Should homosexual rights and laws that protect them be open for "interpretation" and suddenly in the future mean it is Ok to outlaw, persecute, and prosecute them for what to them is a natural right?

Click to expand...

I wonder!
I'm far from being Mormon, and I’m not in favor of recognized gay marriage or unions, but if the gay front fights the fights on the grounds of Constitutional fairness, and freedom, why haven’t the Mormons joined in. After all they were forced to disavow/abandon a lifestyle, forced on by Democratic politicians calling the practice immoral, sinful, and unnatural. The same words expressed by the majority of America on the gay issue today.
Why do the democrats support freedom for one, but bans another; votes. That’s why the push with liberals for gay rights is hot, that why amnesty for illegals is hot, that’s why legalization is hot; votes. It’s not about the cause in politics; we can recall a time in history when the democrats passed legislation the screwed Immigrants because they favored Republicans.

I bet if we were to see the LDS align with the Mormon fundamentalists in reestablishing polygamy the liberals/democrats would do a 180 on polygamy, why, votes.


.

Most "natural" rights have their roots in anthropological history, the social structure of early man, and what works with respect to maintaining a fairly harmonious society.

I seriously doubt tribes outlawed spears 20,000 years ago, just as I seriously doubt homosexual lifestyles added anything of value to the society. Yes, they existed. They were in the very small minority, and were simply tolerated. As for "gay rights," yes, they had the right to build their own dwelling. I seriously doubt the rest of the tribe pitched in to help.

since9 said:

Most "natural" rights have their roots in anthropological history, the social structure of early man, and what works with respect to maintaining a fairly harmonious society.

I seriously doubt tribes outlawed spears 20,000 years ago, just as I seriously doubt homosexual lifestyles added anything of value to the society. Yes, they existed. They were in the very small minority, and were simply tolerated. As for "gay rights," yes, they had the right to build their own dwelling. I seriously doubt the rest of the tribe pitched in to help.

Click to expand...

I disagree, natural rights are what is natural to individual man (or woman). The right to speak freely, right to be armed, right to travel, eat, sleep, have shelter....all things you provide for yourself.

jbone said:

I wonder!
I'm far from being Mormon, and I’m not in favor of recognized gay marriage or unions, but if the gay front fights the fights on the grounds of Constitutional fairness, and freedom, why haven’t the Mormons joined in. After all they were forced to disavow/abandon a lifestyle, forced on by Democratic politicians calling the practice immoral, sinful, and unnatural. The same words expressed by the majority of America on the gay issue today.
Why do the democrats support freedom for one, but bans another; votes. That’s why the push with liberals for gay rights is hot, that why amnesty for illegals is hot, that’s why legalization is hot; votes. It’s not about the cause in politics; we can recall a time in history when the democrats passed legislation the screwed Immigrants because they favored Republicans.

I bet if we were to see the LDS align with the Mormon fundamentalists in reestablishing polygamy the liberals/democrats would do a 180 on polygamy, why, votes.


.

Click to expand...

I doubt democrats would change their view on polygamy because I don't think the votes would be there. The LDS religion is too conservative for that one issue to flip enough votes to matter. I do find it odd that our country has such an issue with it when we were founded on bible principles and polygamy is in the bible. I also don't see the LDS church as going back to it since the main reason they even started practicing polygamy was because mobs kept killing all the men and at that time women pretty much couldn't do a lot of things on their own.

sudden valley gunner said:

I disagree, natural rights are what is natural to individual man (or woman). The right to speak freely, right to be armed, right to travel, eat, sleep, have shelter....all things you provide for yourself.

Click to expand...

I think you completely misunderstood what I said, as you disagreed then reiterated it using different words. Did you really disagree? If so, with what, and why? If you just had something to add, that's fine, and I welcome it, provided it's not mischaracterized as disagreement when it's right in line with what I said.

Aknazer said:

I do find it odd that our country has such an issue with it when we were founded on bible principles and polygamy is in the bible.

Click to expand...

Saying something is found in the Bible is very different than saying the Bible condones it. Both murder and killing are found in the Bible, yet the Bible clearly differentiates the difference between murder and killing. Killing is ok under certain, limited circumstances. Murder is the unlawful taking of another's life and is never ok.

I also don't see the LDS church as going back to it since the main reason they even started practicing polygamy was because mobs kept killing all the men and at that time women pretty much couldn't do a lot of things on their own.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Bible mentions polygamy, and it was widely practiced, but it was not condoned. One was not accepted for service within the church unless one was the husband of but one wife (1 Tim 3:2, 12).

More specifically, in the culture when this passage was written polygamy was not uncommon and to say that a man should "have but one wife" would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy. God ordained one-woman, one-man marriage in the beginning (Genesis 2:20-24). Polygamy originated with the son of rebellious Cain (Genesis. 4:16-19) Although several biblical characters such as David were polygamists the Bible gives clear examples of the destructiveness of this practice. Polygamy resulted in much heartache and trouble (Gen. 16:1-6; 1 Sam. 1:2-8; 1 Kings 11:1-8). God forbid kings to multiply wives (Deut. 17:14,17). David, Solomon, and other kings who had multiple wives were living contrary to God's Word. Most men of God even in the Old Testament had only one wife. This is true for Adam (Gen. 2-4), Noah (Gen. 6:18), Isaac (Gen. 25:20-23), Joseph (Gen. 41:45), Moses (Exodus. 2:21), Boaz (Ruth. 4), Job (Job 1), Isaiah (Isa. 8:3), and Hosea (Hosea 3:1-3). There is no New Testament. example of a godly Christian having more than one wife and those who have more than one wife today are forbidden to hold church leadership positions (1 Tim. 3:2,12; Titus. 1:6). (David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity, Ver. 2.0, 1219 North Harns Road, Oak Harbor, WA 98277, Electronic Version, "polygamy"

I think should be sufficient reference with respect to the Biblical illegitimacy of polygamy.

since9 said:

I think you completely misunderstood what I said, as you disagreed then reiterated it using different words. Did you really disagree? If so, with what, and why? If you just had something to add, that's fine, and I welcome it, provided it's not mischaracterized as disagreement when it's right in line with what I said.

Click to expand...

I quite possibly did misunderstand.

I thought you were insinuating that natural rights developed as a "societal" need. Now on a reread I see how you said social structure, a different beast. I gotcha now. Sorry for my gaff I think we are in agreement.:lol:

Please don't lend credibility to the argument by over-reacting and treating as if it were something that Obama could do unilaterally. Obviously, the public debt can only be established, "by law", and only Congress can enact laws, with respect to which the President may approve or veto. But the President, acting alone, cannot create public debt. If the President spends money not authorized by Congress, this constitutes the crime of "misappropriation of federal funds". He can be personally liable to anyone to whom the U.S. purportedly became obligated by reason of his having done so, since he was not acting within the scope of his office by the commission of a crime.

user said:

Please don't lend credibility to the argument by over-reacting and treating as if it were something that Obama could do unilaterally. Obviously, the public debt can only be established, "by law", and only Congress can enact laws, with respect to which the President may approve or veto. But the President, acting alone, cannot create public debt. If the President spends money not authorized by Congress, this constitutes the crime of "misappropriation of federal funds". He can be personally liable to anyone to whom the U.S. purportedly became obligated by reason of his having done so, since he was not acting within the scope of his office by the commission of a crime.

Click to expand...

Good point.

Did anybody else notice that certain elements of the fedgov crime syndicate become all concerned about the constitution when it suits their ends? They had no problem establishing and going along with an unconstitutional Federal Reserve. They had no problem spending the country into a bottomless hole in direct violation of the General Welfare clause. But, God forbid, the country--meaning you and I--must make good on the debt because the constitution says so. Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!

A "Republic", as far as Humanities and political history goes, means nothing more than a form of government having no king or central dictatorship or monarchy. Since we understand this as meaning no physical sentient endpoint to all matters of government, we know that a "Republic" is a government comprised of the people. Thus you have congress. This actually began during the overthrow of the Roman monarchy (Caesar) in 506 A.D.

There are many ways with which to conduct a Republic, and in that vein you see the sprouting of other current world governments (Russia for example) who operate under said political structure.

Ours is defined explicitly via the Constitution of the United States. It lays down the formal, structured powers expressly enumerated to the people, and granted the government. Our Constitution is unique in that it is expressly delimits the other "rights" at the individual level (9th Amendment), while directly limiting the legally derived authority enacted upon by the Federal government.

Look up the Constitutions of other countries, and you will find them sorely lacking in this regard. What's interesting, is that Rome had a "Constitution" but it was verbal, and not officially transcribed or enacted into law.

Boy are we a lucky nation or what?