Is this a joke? The Founding Fathers were a bunch of slave-owning English aristocrats.

evilgreg
So let's rebuild the Twin Towers with a monument on the grounds. How's that?

I was all for that, I'd have much preferred to see the towers go back up as a statement of resilience. I think we dicked the dog on that one.

Elmo Jones
/Cześć

But are you a good Cześć, or insufficient funds?

Tomflry7
If Fox News was around in 1776 they would be deriding the founding fathers for being LIBERALS.

And if you'd been around, you'd be calling them racist neocons.

Enigmamf
Oh yes, being well paid to sleep in a room with a density of 0.048 people per square foot 8 hours a day for a few months a year while engaged in a rewarding, challenging occupation is MUCH WORSE than being forced to spend 20 hours a day in a room with twice that density, with no compensation and nothing to do, for the rest of your life.

You're not a vet, are you? After 6 years I was taking home $600 every two weeks while working over 300 hours a month, it wasn't "rewarding", and it damn sure wasn't "challenging", it was long, it was boring, and it was tiring. And the main difference? I was where I was because I was out there to defend my fellow citizens, and they were where they were for preying on them. Another difference? The Prison systems were not allowed to work them for more than 8 hours a day, unlike the frequent (every third day) day where I put in a straight 24. I also didn't have the access to the education they did, which was strange, because I had to pay for theirs, and please don't mention the GI Bill before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot. I also didn't have a lot of right those in the jail still had, I could be charged, tried, and convict without an attorney, I did not have freedom of speech. But we had a lot in common too. I also wasn't free to leave where I was, I also had no choice in what to wear (strangely enough, at that time, the exact same clothes the prisoners were wearing), I also didn't get to choose what to do or when to do it. And, again unlike them, I didn't have the opportunity to see my term end early for "good behavior".

Sorry, but they were in jail for a reason, fark 'em.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Nocens: He's actually 100% correct.

They don't constitutionally have the power they claim to wield. But, they are the most powerful branch of the government and the only checks against them are long in between.

Somewhere along the line, SCOTUS deviated in its mission to interpret the Constitution to the letter forcing American society to evolve within its constraints and embarked on interpretation to fit society's evolution.

The judiciary is the most powerful branch? What a ridiculous assertion. SCOTUS takes around 100 cases a year, most of which have no practical effect whatsoever on the lives of the citizenry, or deal with procedural issues. When they do have a "landmark" opinion, it's usually a slight tweak in what the standard currently is. Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception. Besides what has become a general police power via the Commerce Clause, they have the power to impeach the President and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Congress is by far the most powerful of the branches, and always has been. The framers ("founding fathers," is a little too deity-like for my liking) recognized this in the Federalist Papers among other founding era documents.


Ridiculous?

You're talking about a body who can take the Constitution and dictate what it means to their whim. They recently gave Congress the power to pass ex post facto laws despite the fact the Constitution forbids it. Last I checked, that requires an amendment.

They can take power away and give it as they see fit. Your commerce clause? Who do you think gave Congress the sweeping power it's come to be?

They can take any power or right and dictate how powerful it is or how limited it can be. They define the scope to be sweeping or meaningless. They dictate what powers or rights have priority.

They don't even have to reference the Constitution in their rulings. While the Constitution may forbid the government a power, they can and have simply gone to other bodies of law to support their rulings or simply state "spirit" and roll on.

It is within their power to gimp or empower the other two branches, the states, and the people as they see fit. They are the last word on what can fly and what can't.

fredklein: Found this online:

AS I sit here, July 4th, 2009, I think about the state of my country, and dispair. Yes, we fought for and won our Independance 230 years ago, but what have we done since then?

We went from horse and buggy to helicopters. But where are the flying cars?

We went from earth to the moon, but where are our moonbases?

We went from slavery to freedom, but racism (on both sides) continues on.

We went from 13 struggling Colonies to being a SuperPower that fought and won two World Wars halfway around the planet, but half the world hates us.


I walk down the street, and hear the English language being butchered. The Educational System is falling apart, with more attention being paid to how kids feel that to what they learn. Can't let little Jonny feel bad about not knowing basic math... in 8th grade.

People have a feeling of entitlment. They feel they are 'owed' something. The government 'owes' them a check each month. Companies 'owe' them a job. Society 'owes' them another chance after they are caught dealing drugs/stealing cars/whatever.

But these (and other) issues are minor compared to the most pressing issue of all: The Erosion of our Rights.

The Government (and by that, I mean The People In Charge) is slowly eating away at our Rights. There are plenty of examples out there, IF you care to look. But many people don't bother looking, and don't see if they do. A few examples to think about:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms- The Second Amendment does NOT say that automatic weapons or "assault weapons" (no matter how you define them) are excluded from that Right. And Waiting periods do indeed 'infringe' on that Right.
But all oppressive governments try to disarm their citizens.

The Right to Peacably Assemble. Hundreds of people arrested at the Democratic/Republican conventions in New York recently. They were doing nothing illegal, but were litterally coralled like cattle, and arrested.

The Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Try flying lately? There are dozens, hundreds of complaints of TSA employees 'frisking' women and feeing them up. The TSA says it will break the lock on your suitcase if it wants to search your bag. And of course, they are not responsible of all your valuables go missing....

These are but a few examples of the disintegration of our Rights. Of course, one can argue that they represent necessary steps. But necessary for what? Are they taking away our Rights to help keep us Free?? Does no one see the illogic of that?!?

I'd like to finish with a quote from the Declaration of Independence that was made 230 years ago. (I strongly urge everyone reading this to read that document. Read it, and think about it. It'll only take a few lousy minutes of your time, but might enlighten you.)

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

"...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

Is now the time?

Think about it.

- A Patriot

Good luck with that.

Happy Dependence Day ...

Wraithbane: I didn't have the opportunity to see my term end early for "good behavior".



Should have gone for REALLY good behavior hehehe

Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

I am probably misquoting, but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who also said that in order to be free, we must give up some parts of freedom? If this was a completely free society, then it would be anarchy. Complete freedom means doing whatever you want, when you want. You can have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all you want; as long as you don't deny someone else to right to do the same. It's not 100% free, but then again, complete freedom like what you are espousing, would not be a good thing.

Plus, are you that angry over seat belt laws? Really? In the same sentence with the RIAA and the Patriot Act? WOW!

vertiaset: I wonder, if the U.S. had remained British, by this time due to our size, strength and population, Britain would just be one of the "States" in the Union, and a small insignificant one at that.

Never happen. Besides, if that logic worked, Britain and the US would be Indian States.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

Goethe

Pretty much sums up half the people in this thread.

Lord Summerisle: Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

nah Ive lived few a few of these....

This is the day they blow stuff up and feel more bold about blowing stuff up....

so hehehe careful ;-)

Bauer: 9/11 must be forgotten.

It will be. Ask 100 people under 25 years old what happened on December 7th, I would be willing to bet less than a quarter know.

MajorityWhip: Jefferson Lives - John Adams

Oddly enough, today is also the anniversary of the death of both of them.

The Southern Dandy: Besides, if that logic worked, Britain and the US would be Indian States

Britain might possibly have been an indian state (again, "if that logic worked")
I think America has sufficient natural resources it would never have become one (India did not have the resources to absorb the US, but the UK has no real natural resources at all once her empire fell apart.... well.... not enough to absorb larger countries)

Pretty glad Im not speaking Hindi, Punjabi, etc...
... really should go learn them though, I hear the poetry is magnificent.

Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

Stick a gun in your mouth and end the misery.

crash665: I am probably misquoting, but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who also said that in order to be free, we must give up some parts of freedom? If this was a completely free society, then it would be anarchy. Complete freedom means doing whatever you want, when you want. You can have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all you want; as long as you don't deny someone else to right to do the same. It's not 100% free, but then again, complete freedom like what you are espousing, would not be a good thing.

He isn't advocating anarchy. Of course anarchy isn't what most people think it is anyway (most people erroneously equate it with chaos). There is a difference between protecting citizenry from the aggression of others and protecting citizenry from themselves. The first is a debatably legitimate function of government, the second is not.

Plus, are you that angry over seat belt laws? Really? In the same sentence with the RIAA and the Patriot Act? WOW!

Seat belt laws are not just "seat belt laws." They give the police unprecedented power to stop, detain, and question anyone in your vehicle. Not to mention fine you potentially hundreds of dollars.

Lord Summerisle: Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

You say that like you're proud of losing to the French, Dutch and Spanish.

Sum Dum Gai: This got greenlit? It's a repeat from 1776.

Came here to say THIS.

shanewf: Happy Dependence Day ...

And also to you!

nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple part.

YouWinAgainGravity: trixter_nl: If I am wrong please by all means post something other than a personal attack that supports your notion that the form of government the US has is an oligarchy as you insist that it is (I thought it said republic, which puts the court inferior to the constitution, I could be wrong though, I did live in Amsterdam which according to you immediately negates my knowledge and ability to gain knowledge about the US government).

Article 3 of the constitution establishes the supreme court and gives it jurisdiction over cases related to US law and the Constitution.


That does NOT allow them to do what you said, it does not allow them to rewrite the constitution (modification without ratification).

At no point in the Constitution does it state that it must be interpreted according to the literal wording.
Nowhere does it say they can modify without ratification, in fact it clearly lays out the process to modify the constitution under a section titled "ratification", as a result, they are not allowed to violate that section just because they feel like it. It is implicit that they have to follow the constitution, which includes the modification procedure.



Some (like you) want complete literal interpretation, many want them interpreted according to original intent, many want it to be a "living document" and re-interpreted as the times change.

I just want it followed, all of it, not just the parts that are easy and meet some political goal. This includes the fact that they are not allowed to modify without ratification, that SCOTUS has to follow the constitution the same as everyone else should have to follow it. this requires it to be interpreted as it was written using the contemporary language of the time it was written. If you allow for a living document system without an amendment to enable that, then you are allowing modification without ratification, which in itself is not allowed by the constitution, it also alters the form of government from a republic to an oligarchy.

If enough people want the living document oligarchy plan, then there are 2 methods to accomplish this. Either a congressional amendment is proposed and passed, or a constitutional convention is called and an amendment is proposed and voted on, in both cases it requires ratification. And if that happens then I will no longer insist that the constitution be followed under the current system, but I will insist that it be followed under that new ratified system.

When you say that they can interpret it as they see fit, that its a living document, you are in essence allowing them to say that any right guaranteed can be stripped merely because they said it was ok, and came up with some justification on how they interpreted it that way (which technically would be optional). Granting that level of power is a death nail in freedom and liberty. What if they wake up some morning and decide that 6th amendment due process rights should be reinterpreted to have some exception (as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and other amendments have)? This means that it would be perfectly "constitutional" at that point to no longer provide for due process rights, no lawyer, no trial, nothing. Oh wait that already happened. Ok, what if they take away your 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself? Oh wait 1040 tax forms which have been used against people who declared illegal money, or others who did not declare illegal money. Hmm.. Well ok what if they say that your freedom of speech should be curtailed? Oh wait there was someone in alcatraz for mailing "obscenities" through the mail - it was medical info on STDs. Hmm.. I am really having a problem here, maybe you can come up with an example of where they can take away some freedom that is not a bad thing just because they want to interpret things differently.



But the point is, according to the powers in the constitution, and the precedents that have been set since almost the beginning of this country's history, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. And if they make a ruling, whether we agree with them or not, it is by definition "constitutional" until they overturn themselves.

You are half right, and for that I will give you credit. Yes the court
There is nothing in the constitution, and your reluctance to provide anything to this effect indicates that you now realize there is nothing in the constitution that grants the court the ability to modify the constitution without ratification.

All you have provided is that some americans believe that SCOTUS should be able to, which does not make it constitutional, you have said SCOTUS has said that they can do this, again that does not make it jive with the constitution despite your best efforts to confuse things to say that it does. You have time and again ignored the ratification section of the constitution that does not enable SCOTUS to circumvent that provision.

Nowhere in Article III does it grant the judicial branch the power to reinterpret the constitution as they see fit. And in fact you have to go back to common law rules for how the courts should be done, and how they should interpret things, since that is the basis of them.

The closest thing you can get is Article III section 2
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; ..."

What it means there "under this Constitution" is for a case where there is a constitutional issue, and it is that power that is being abused "because the court said it could" denying violations because they want to expand the scope and power of government, working out exceptions that almost always favor the government's expanding role.

There is nothing there in that wording that allows for them to reinterpret the constitution to alter its meaning, and nothing there that lets them modify without ratification.

Subby I think you mean Purfuit of Happineff.

Githerax: nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple and red parts.

FTFY

Lord Summerisle: Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

I notice that you boys couldn't do it on your own without the help of some hired Germans...

The reason I don't defend modification or even bring it up, is because interpretation is not the same thing as modification. And yes, justices can interpret as they see fit. However, this is why we have checks and balances. The executive branch nominates the justices, and the legislative branch confirms them (and can theoretically impeach a sitting justice). Additionally, we have multiple justices so that one person's bias does not necessarily dictate interpretation.

crash665:

I am probably misquoting, but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who also said that in order to be free, we must give up some parts of freedom?

No, well ok he may have but others said it first :) I believe that it was Greeks who said "you cannot be free without laws" or something to that effect. Thousands of years before Jefferson.

Yes, you need some level of government, however the original US government is about where I am just left of anarchy (anarchy is far right wing with 0% government, facism, nazism, socialism, communism are far left at 100% government). The problem was that the original government was not powerful enough to stay coherent, so they added a bit more to it and moved it slightly to the left and then it was ok.

Then after a while things got weird and we started moving dramatically to the left, with the government gaining more and more power. Both parties for quite some time have only produced candidates that will take it further to the left, and for the most part dems/reps are not a left/right thing, they are just left in different ways.

Lord Summerisle: Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

And if it weren't for us yanks you and yours would be speaking German right now.

Githerax: nicksteel: where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??



The purple part.

to a point the red part too. I come from a little tribe known as the Cherokee, they used to live in the Georgia area, and were sequestered to a reservation in Georgia until gold was discovered there. At that time there were some SCOTUS cases where SCOTUS said "you are indians, you have no purpose in this court, GTFO" and in a followup case they did rule that Georgia could not boot em off the reservation and Andrew Jackson said "Marshall made his decision, lets see him enforce it" and the forced death march to Oklahoma began. For this death march Jackson was placed on the $20, go figure.

george tenant told george bush that 'iraq wmds' were a slam dunk.

-wmds were a lie.

the cia helped fuel the lies for the war.

he got a medal for his part.

-the whole world knows this...end of story.

any credibility we had as a nation is gone.

sorry nicksteel...that you choose not to see it.

one thing is for sure...we can only go up from here.

so...i guess we have george w. bush to thank for pushing us all over the edge...so now...we can finally, honestly, take a good look at ourselves.

-and try to move foward.

i'm not impressed so far.

buzzvert: If I don't believe in a Creator, do I still have certain unalienable rights?

The right not to believe in a Creator

Look, if you want to spend your day focusing on the negatives and convince yourself that we're living in a country with no freedom and everything's in a shiathole, you're welcome to but that's a very sad reality to live in. I'm going to the pool and a bbq, and focusing on the positives.

Lord Summerisle: Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

no. today is the day we attend parades, eat burnt hotdogs and drink as much cheap beer as possible.

wtf are you talking about?

/you damned foreigner!

jst3p: Lord Summerisle: Hey there, Yanks. Is today the day you celebrate getting chased all round the countryside being beaten like rented mules until the French, Dutch and Spanish saved you?

And if it weren't for us yanks you and yours would be speaking German right now.

The dutch had a offer to keep their government, without being forced to speak german or even have direct german control over it. They could have kept their language if they wanted :)

Seat belt laws are not just "seat belt laws." They give the police unprecedented power to stop, detain, and question anyone in your vehicle. Not to mention fine you potentially hundreds of dollars.

I have to disagree. MOST people need protection from themselves - I'm looking at you Florida. Most people in this country and in the world don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain. The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless. Unfortunately, there are people who will drive while intoxicated and they need to be stopped. It is not our "right" to drive drunk. Unfortunately, many people drive like complete ass-hats and need seat belts.
We bring it upon ourselves. If no one ever drove recklessly and paid attention, then there would be no seat belt laws. If we didn't drink and drive, then there would be no need for road blocks. If no one ever blew their hand off lighting firecrackers or burned there ass sticking a bottle rocket where the sun doesn't shine, then there wouldn't be warning labels on the packages, and we could legally buy them here in Georgia WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO ALABAMA TO GET THE GOOD STUFF! (sorry)
If there was no one in the world trying to blow us up, then we wouldn't need the Patriot Act. (If the U.S. had stayed out of the Middle East to begin with, then there may/may not be people trying to blow us up. But that's a different post.)

MIguy: Stick a gun in your mouth and end the misery.

Sorry, Weaver doesn't exactly toe the Republican party line.
I'm assuming since Sarah Palin (your god and hero) quit this is your last order.

crash665: If there was no one in the world trying to blow us up, then we wouldn't don't and never will need the Patriot Act.

crash665: I have to disagree. MOST people need protection from themselves - I'm looking at you Florida. Most people in this country and in the world don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain. The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless.

Nothing scares me more than the idiot who believes he has a right to "protect me" from myself. And you have no concept of what a government's duty is.

YouWinAgainGravity: Look, if you want to spend your day focusing on the negatives and convince yourself that we're living in a country with no freedom and everything's in a shiathole, you're welcome to but that's a very sad reality to live in. I'm going to the pool and a bbq, and focusing on the positives.


Again a personal attack from you, I see a trend here, but the reality is that is not what I am doing, saying you are wrong and proving it by quoting the constitution does not in any way say that I am only focusing on the negatives. While you are free to be a very negative person and personally attack people who disagree with your anti-constitution views that does not in any way make what you said a compelling argument.

I do not recall anyone saying there were no freedoms, only that freedoms are being taken away, and that eventually there will be none if people play "ostrich" (bending over, sticking your head in the sand and hoping no one runs up behind you doing naughty things to your backside). The point was one of hope, not dispair. Following the constitution does not mean that all is lost, it actually means that more is gained, and for those that would listen, I submit that freedoms that have been lost can be regained, so long as people are willing to fight for those freedoms. This does not mean take to the streets in an armed insurrection, I actually provided a url to a group that is trying to do a peaceful non-violent government change, http://www.goooh.com, by voting to replace the government with one that will do what it says it will and not a bunch of back room deals.

I am sorry that you see less government control and more freedom as a negative, had I known that you had those feelings about freedom I would not have bothered trying to educate you with facts and logic, I would have instead just said "troll" which appears to be the usual response here. Instead I thought that you would, like me, view freedom as a good thing, as a positive thing, as something to aspire to have. Based on that apparently mistaken view I had of you, I thought that you would be happy to know that there are people out there trying to ensure that you have the freedom to own a pool, a bbq, and to use them as you see fit, on the days that you see fit.

what_now [TotalFark] 2009-07-04 10:32:57 AM
Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

You shush. Have a hot dog, a beer, and a sparkler.

Over in 2 excelent posts.

// Off to morn the death of my nation
///... and perhaps drink myself into oblivion.
//// slashies!!!

vertiaset: Nocens

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Nocens: He's actually 100% correct.

They don't constitutionally have the power they claim to wield. But, they are the most powerful branch of the government and the only checks against them are long in between.

Somewhere along the line, SCOTUS deviated in its mission to interpret the Constitution to the letter forcing American society to evolve within its constraints and embarked on interpretation to fit society's evolution.

The judiciary is the most powerful branch? What a ridiculous assertion. SCOTUS takes around 100 cases a year, most of which have no practical effect whatsoever on the lives of the citizenry, or deal with procedural issues. When they do have a "landmark" opinion, it's usually a slight tweak in what the standard currently is. Congress meanwhile has regulated every single aspect of our lives without exception. Besides what has become a general police power via the Commerce Clause, they have the power to impeach the President and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Congress is by far the most powerful of the branches, and always has been. The framers ("founding fathers," is a little too deity-like for my liking) recognized this in the Federalist Papers among other founding era documents.


Ridiculous?

You're talking about a body who can take the Constitution and dictate what it means to their whim. They recently gave Congress the power to pass ex post facto laws despite the fact the Constitution forbids it. Last I checked, that requires an amendment.

They can take power away and give it as they see fit. Your commerce clause? Who do you think gave Congress the sweeping power it's come to be?

They can take any power or right and dictate how powerful it is or how limited it can be. They define the scope to be sweeping or meaningless. They dictate what powers or rights have priority.

They don't even have to reference the Constitution in their rulings. While the Constitution may forbid the government a power, they can and have simply gone to other bodies of law to support their rulings or simply state "spirit" and roll on.

It is within their power to gimp or empower the other two branches, the states, and the people as they see fit. They are the last word on what can fly and what can't.

On hearing that the U.S. Supreme Court had held in favor of the Cherokee Indians with regard from their removal from Georgia:

John Marshall (Chief Justice) has made his decision ... now let him enforce it!"


Thing is, Jackson didn't exercise any Constitutional power. He did the same thing SCOTUS does on a regular basis in the modern era. He should have been impeached for it but public opinion was on his side. As far as I know, only two Presidents in history have pulled this. You got one with Jackson and the other when Lincoln went full retard.

m2313: Weaver doesn't exactly toe the Republican party line

how do you toe a line ?

... agree on weaver though

// am I right to be totally freaked out at agreeing with weaver more and more lately ?

MIguy: Stick a gun in your mouth and end the misery.

y'know, I have never seen you post a positive comment about anything. Seriously - I see you comment on a lot of discussion threads and you have never, in anything i've ever read, had one kind word for anything, anyone or any idea. You are unwavering in your bile spewing hatred of damn near everything on this planet.

Weaver95: You are unwavering in your bile spewing hatred of damn near everything on this planet

hey cut that out.... !!!

// agrees

Weaver95: MIguy: Stick a gun in your mouth and end the misery.

y'know, I have never seen you post a positive comment about anything. Seriously - I see you comment on a lot of discussion threads and you have never, in anything i've ever read, had one kind word for anything, anyone or any idea. You are unwavering in your bile spewing hatred of damn near everything on this planet.

Hero emulation.

"You're not a vet, are you? After 6 years I was taking home $600 every two weeks while working over 300 hours a month, it wasn't "rewarding", and it damn sure wasn't "challenging", it was long, it was boring, and it was tiring. And the main difference? I was where I was because I was out there to defend my fellow citizens, and they were where they were for preying on them. Another difference? The Prison systems were not allowed to work them for more than 8 hours a day, unlike the frequent (every third day) day where I put in a straight 24. I also didn't have the access to the education they did, which was strange, because I had to pay for theirs, and please don't mention the GI Bill before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot. I also didn't have a lot of right those in the jail still had, I could be charged, tried, and convict without an attorney, I did not have freedom of speech. But we had a lot in common too. I also wasn't free to leave where I was, I also had no choice in what to wear (strangely enough, at that time, the exact same clothes the prisoners were wearing), I also didn't get to choose what to do or when to do it. And, again unlike them, I didn't have the opportunity to see my term end early for "good behavior".

Sorry, but they were in jail for a reason, fark 'em."

-wraithbane....

sorry...but you chose that life.

i'm even more sorry that you don't feel honored about it.

why did you go into the service, if not to serve ALL of america?

-not just the red states or the people you don't agree with.

sadly, i think you missed the point of service.

am i wrong?

when did you go from being "americas soldier" to being "fark you, my fellow idiot countrymen"?

isn't a grand civilization defined by the treatment of its criminals?

or its dissenters?

P.S.

Bauer: isn't a grand civilization defined by the treatment of its criminals?

or its dissenters?

starts with "children"

"those that a civilization feels the authority to command"

crash665: I have to disagree. MOST people need protection from themselves - I'm looking at you Florida.

No, they really don't. If they want to fark up their own lives, they should be free to do exactly that. I certainly don't need to be told what to do by you or some government bureaucrat, it's an unwelcome invasion upon my integrity and dignity as a human being.

Most people in this country and in the world don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain.

So let them get wet.

The government's duty is to protect its citizens. Whether it is from others or themselves is meaningless.

No, it emphatically is not. It makes all the difference in the world. It all comes back to choice.

Unfortunately, there are people who will drive while intoxicated and they need to be stopped. It is not our "right" to drive drunk. Unfortunately, many people drive like complete ass-hats and need seat belts.

There is a distinction. Somebody driving drunk endangers me. Somebody driving without a seatbelt does not endanger me (I don't want to hear any far-fetched scenarios) so I couldn't care less whether they do or not. That should be their choice.

We bring it upon ourselves. If no one ever drove recklessly and paid attention, then there would be no seat belt laws.

It's a revenue collection mechanism and a tool used by police to gather information. I can assure you it has very little to do with safety. By the way, New Hampshire has no seatbelt law and they are statistically one of the safest states.

If we didn't drink and drive, then there would be no need for road blocks.

Road blocks are an abomination. I'd rather take my chances with a drunk any day than be treated like a criminal and be questioned and detained by police.

If no one ever blew their hand off lighting firecrackers or burned there ass sticking a bottle rocket where the sun doesn't shine, then there wouldn't be warning labels on the packages, and we could legally buy them here in Georgia WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO ALABAMA TO GET THE GOOD STUFF! (sorry)

If somebody else wants to blow their own hand off with a firecracker you care...why? Your argument is also becoming confused because you seem to resent and knowingly circumvent a regulation you previously claimed was justified for safety reasons.

If there was no one in the world trying to blow us up, then we wouldn't need the Patriot Act. (If the U.S. had stayed out of the Middle East to begin with, then there may/may not be people trying to blow us up. But that's a different post.)

We don't need the Patriot Act, it is an abhorrent, unconstitutional, and completely unnecessary piece of legislation.

You are a sad, scared person and I feel for sorry for you. You have willingly sacrificed freedom for safety and you, as the saying goes, will soon end up with neither.

Nocens:

Thing is, Jackson didn't exercise any Constitutional power. He did the same thing SCOTUS does on a regular basis in the modern era. He should have been impeached for it but public opinion was on his side. As far as I know, only two Presidents in history have pulled this. You got one with Jackson and the other when Lincoln went full retard.


I agree, and assume that with lincoln you are talking about suspending habeus corpus (a legislative not executive power) and imprisoned newspaper editors who were critical of his administration, and not freeing the slaves that were in states that were part of the union, only freeing them in states that were part of the confederacy, after saying at the time he was inaugurated that he had no power to free the slaves under the 10th amendment.

With that do you not find it odd that they are both revered as great presidents and are on the money in the US?