Today is Friday and I go to my Hindu temple. I will light an incense stick and do a pooja to my Elephant God to keep our boys safe and minimize mayhem.
Abortion foes should really not gloat over the death and desperation war inflicts jethro. Shame on you.
hey jethro - I got an e-mail from an Indian classmate of mine who works for Aramco in Riyadh. He wanted me to offer prayers on his behalf - he cannot do it in our ally SA since Hinduism is not allowed there. Ironically , he used to work for Aramco in Iraq and was freely allowed to worship there and even had a Hindu temple in his home. Go figure.
hey jethro - I got an e-mail from an Indian classmate of mine who works for Aramco in Riyadh. He wanted me to offer prayers on his behalf - he cannot do it in our ally SA since Hinduism is not allowed there. Ironically , he used to work for Aramco in Iraq and was freely allowed to worship there and even had a Hindu temple in his home. Go figure.
Is there any reason I should care?
Jethro cares only if you are a Christian.
No, I don't care about how the Saudis or for that matter any other country handles religion.
this is not a personal Attack or anything.. I have debated you for some time and I have read many of your posts.
And this is my impression of you and your views.
You are the worst that America can produce in its citizenry.
When the liberal founding fathers came up with a secular constitutionon the basis of "all men are created equal", folks like you then must have had a hard time dealing with the fact, why this country was not declared a Christian country. Why certain groups of people were not elevated than others.
When Slavery was inplace... folks who thought like you, thought that it was their fundemental right to do that.
When Jim Crowe was in place.. folks like you , argued for it and hated folks like MLK Jr. who questioned them.
Thank God, Folks who think like you are relegated to the dustbin of history.
This country has been making progress, and living up to the promises enshrined in the Constitution.. no matter what folks like you think or try to stop that progress..
You are the worst that America can produce in its citizenry.
Thank you so much. But I am not worthy of that title. I think you are much more fitting than I. However having said that there may be some that are more deserving of it than you, but you are a true contestant for the title.
When the liberal founding fathers came up with a secular constitution on the basis of "all men are created equal", folks like you then must have had a hard time dealing with the fact, why this country was not declared a Christian country. Why certain groups of people were not elevated than others.
You need to understand that while the intention MAY have been to create a secular federal government the intent was to allow the states and their citizenry determine religious matters. The states could, if they so chose, have a state church. Many of them did and had state churches for years. Folks like you seem not to understand that.
Folks like you just may have done that. Like I said you appear to be the one that goes with what ever is in vogue. If you knew anything about me, as you say that you do, you would know that I generally don't go with whatever is in vogue.
It's been how long since Bush has been rattling the saber towards Iraq, about six months? We know that he's going to start the war with or without U.N. approval, and regardless to any of us that has a say in the matter. Right now, even if I did support him, he's starting to look indecsive with all these false starts and "let's rolls" and "game overs", hardly what his handlers want him to be.
I'm mean, do it and get it over with (and whatever damage it does to the Republician party and, unfortunately, the American and Iraqi people) or listen to everyone and don't do it.
These people think Bush looks indecisive on Iraq. What a poor perception of reality.
There were many things that the states got away with in the beginning, that they can no longer get away with, like Slavery for one, but you see, cooler-heads prevailed, and stopped these injustices and illegalities, long ago.
That is the key problem with liberals, they think the states got away with things in the absence of federal power. Sorry, fold, that was what used to be called freedom. Freedomm meaning being free form control of a centralized government. As for slavery it was abolished by constitutional process, although I do believe the southern states were coerced into supporting it.
Now, fold, banning prayer in school and constitutional protection of abortion were not instituted by legitimate constitutional law. They were federal power grabs not supported in any way by any reasonable reading of the document.
NO state can establish ANY religion, and that is CLEARLY pointed out in the Constitution.
Under a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution a state can establish a religion. And that was the recognized reading of the Constitution, I believe, well into the 20th Century. Not until the 1940's did the Supreme Court come up with the nonsense of applicablity of the bill of rights to state government. And the incorporation doctrine, my friend, was pure politics and not legal reasoning.
It is only because the courts TOOK that long that they finally HAD to dissolve any formal state religion.
I don't believe the federal courts had anything to do with dissolving state churches. The federal government did not get involved in those matters until the 20th century.
That is the problem with Lunatic-Fringe Conservatives like you, they re-write history As-They-Go.
I am rewriting nothing. What I don't understand is that you don't even question what it is that you believe and why you believe it. If you think I am so wrong I suggest you show me where I went astray.
OH and... It is more correctly, "Federal Enforcement of Amendments to the Constitution, forbidding the establishment or Religions", by the states, or by the government, in any form.
Those amendments were never meant to apply to the states, fold. They did not apply until some liberals on the Supreme Court decided that somehow the 14th amendment allowed the federal government to impose some of the amendments (exactly which ones know one is sure) over state sovereignty.
Now the prime example of how this was a power grab is the language of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment specifically says that states cannot deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law. Now this language is the same language contained in the fifth amendment. Therefore, the 14th amendment clearly intended to impose that particular amendment on the states. The 14th amendment does not say anything about establishing religion. If the drafters of the 14th amendment could specifically state that life liberty and property could not be taken from any one without due process of law, don't you think the drafters could have just as easily stated that states couldn't establish religion, if that were their intent? Don't you think that if the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment was to impose all the bill of rights on state government that they could have written that?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Â Â
It says "Congress", but does not mention the states. I am not saying that you are wrong Bill, but how does that ammendment stop a state from establishing a religion?
the 13th amendment supposedly abolishes slavery and has 2 sections
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I guess according to Dan and jethro slavery is also legal if done by the states.
What do you think "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction," means, Naradar?
It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration
[[Page 971]] of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.''\7\
Ask Jethro to explain the three "Tests" which the Court uses to either accept or condemn any state sponsored religion, and under which they have consistently ruled that ANY established state-religion, violates the First Amendment.
I see that you miss the point. The question is not what the current state of the law is but how we got to the current state of the law. I say to you that we got to the current state of the law through ignoring the Constitutional rules themselves. It was done by poilitcs and not by law.
Ask Jethro to explain the three "Tests" which the Court uses to either accept or condemn any state sponsored religion, and under which they have consistently ruled that ANY established state-religion, violates the First Amendment.
We got to the tests because of the fallacy of the incorporation doctrince of the 14th amendment. The federal government was never intended to have any power over religion in any state.
YOU, are smarter than the Nine wise "People" in D.C....?
Give it a rest.
It has nothing to do with intelligence or the lack thereof. I am saying that the incorporation doctrine was the result of politics. It is not supported by the plain reading of the Constitution and it not supported by historical background.
thank God we did it by the process of Politics and not by the process of using guns and violence.
Ahem.. Just incase you missed it.. Thats why we have Politicians..
It appears I should have said it was done by politics not LAW. I forget that sometime I have to deal with simpletons here. Judges are not supposed to be politicians. They are supposed to read the law and the Constitution and determine what the intent of the drafters were and enforce that intent. In your world you don't need politicians, it appears, you need judges. It is people of your persuasion that need judges because you will never get the results you seek through the political process.
The Constitution is a Living Document. If we interpreted it in a static, read-only form, we would have anarchy.
That, is what YOU have never understood...Jethro.
What you don't seem to understand is that the "living document" nonsense is just an attempt to justify judicial rulings that cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. It is used to achieve political goals that cannot be achieved through the political process. The Constitution is a rule book, that is all. Either you follow the rules, you get the rules changed through the rule changing process or you break the rules. Those that claim the Constitution is a "living document" are breaking the rules.
Jethro...isn't the document "Changed" legitimately by one of the three branches of government,(sometimes the Congress, Sometimes the Judiciary) laid out perfectly, so that anyone can understand what they are?
You are saying that it NEVER changes, or if it does, it is because malcontents have done so, by some dishonest means.
That is crap, and it is false.
I do not know what you mean by your first paragraph. None of the three branches can "change" the constitution. The judicial branch does interpret what it means if it is ambiguous. In so doing the Court's duty is to determine what was meant by the drafters and try to enforce it. If people do not like what it was that the drafters intended there is a mechanism for changing the constitution.
The argument about religion, the US constitution et al has been waged endlessly. I have butted heads on this issue in several Forums. Everything is regurgitated puke.
The courts will ultimately reenforce one viewpoint - based on the existing po;itical propensity. When the political winds change, it will swing the opposite way.
This is what renders the noble ideals of the US constitution utterly meaningless. The American constitition has been bastardized just as badly as any 3rd world nation run by a dictator.
However it will be the compulsion of the American citizenry that will keep values like seperation of Church and state, abortion rights , affirmative action alive and flourishing. The choice may not be dictated by reasoned logic or punditry - but as long as a majority wants it in the US, it will remain enshrined.
The advocates for each position will make their case vehemently and volubly.
As of now the State should stay the fuck out of anyones religion, a woman has the right to dictate what she wants to do with what is in her womb and we deem it necessary to give a leg up to those who need it.
Till the passions rise to alter it, we advocates of these positions win and will strive to keep it this way.
Really? Then what are "Amendments", and why are they proposed, voted on and added? That WAS the point, fold. There is a political process for changing the constitution.Why are new laws constantly being drafted and accepted and reviewed by the Supreme Courts, to see if they violate any of those Amendments? Because all legislation is supposed to be within the delegated power of the constitution. geeeeezzzzzz....And why does the President have a "Veto" power, if not to stop laws(acts) or provisions within laws that he feels are not right? You don't appear to be making a distinction between the constitution and federal statutes, fold.
No, I am sorry, but you don't make sense. I don't make sense?!!!!!The Constitution is constantly being reviewed, changed and tweaked by "Acts" of Congress, and the Courts review these "Acts", to see if they violate the many "Amendments", and if found not to, they are considered the law, just as much as and in concert with, any of the Amendments. The acts of congress are not constitutional amendments.
However it will be the compulsion of the American citizenry that will keep values like seperation of Church and state, abortion rights , affirmative action alive and flourishing. The choice may not be dictated by reasoned logic or punditry - but as long as a majority wants it in the US, it will remain enshrined. You mean as long as they are ignorant of US history. Thank you teachers unions.
Till the passions rise to alter it, we advocates of these positions win and will strive to keep it this way. You will eventually lose, one way or the other.
Turkey calls for emergency consultations after 3 allies block military planning to protect Turkey from Iraqi missile attack
Paul Ames Associated Press  Â
Published Feb. 10, 2003 NATO11
BRUSSELS, Belgium - France, Germany and Belgium blocked NATO efforts Monday to begin planning for possible Iraqi attacks against Turkey, deepening divisions in the alliance over the U.S.-led push to oust Saddam Hussein.
Turkey immediately requested emergency consultations under NATO's mutual defense treaty - or Article 4 - the first time a nation has done so in the alliance's 53-year history.
``I am not seeking today to minimize the seriousness of the situation. It is serious,'' said NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson during a break in the meeting of alliance ambassadors, where he called the atmosphere ``very heated.''
Diplomats said France, Germany and Belgium would do serious harm to the credibility of NATO if they would reject Turkey's direct request for help.
Guess the French and Germans are doing everything they can to make sure they become more irrelevant. And some still want to take them seriously ? They don't want to even plan for possible attacks from Iraq? Which would most certainly happen. No, let's not even plan. Yes, let's heed the French and German examples. Good idea.
Why have a war and shed American blood for oil in Iraq??
Send the French, Germans, Belgians and Russians to permanently police Iraq, perennially inspect for WMD's, ensure Iraq's oil revenue goes only to its people.
In other words let the UN do in Iraq what little boy bush wants to do.
Watched "Casablanca" last night, just because the French have been getting kicked around lately.,
How does "Casablanca" give a good impression of the French? I mean the French guy was a two faced weasel in the movie. Must be something to the stereotype.
Damn, that was quick. First, Powell reviews the tape, and tells AJ that they're going to be airing it. AJ denies existence of the tape. AP then says that the tape has arrived at AJ, and now CNN says that the tape has been aired, and I'm hearing that Faux News even carried the broadcast live. Further, CNN is saying that AJ issued a denial of the existence of the tape.
Sounds like Powell wasn't checking the tracking number on the State Dept. FedEx by the time he went public with this information.
Yea, You guys are right. Nobody's looking for him. I mean it wouldn't make someone even more popular if he was found. So I'm sure they've just packed thier bags and quit looking for him. Unless of course you're advocating invading Pakistan or every other country that he might be in. There's over 60 countries where Al Quieda is active. We can't find people wanted in this country. It's a taller order doing so where law enforcement is substandard or corrupt and over half the population is sympathetic to him. You're right though I'm sure we've quit looking for him. Geeez.
I still think he is dead. I think the tape we heard yesterday is a fake or was recorded in the past. If he was still alive I think he would have sent in a video by now.
IMO I think he's dead too. If he were, what better way to give the U.S the finger and show the rest of the world he's still alive. And to show his followers how Allah protected him from the infidels. Some say that he isn't doing video because he doesn't want people to know he's alive. Well sending audio is doing the same thing. A video of him with a dated newspaper etc. would be the ultimate F.U. and from everything I've read on the guy he'd do it in a heartbeat and want to do just that. I think he's buried in some cave or in the ground somewhere. And if he is may he rot in hell and his 72 virgins turn out to be really ugly old prostitutes with a screaming case of the clap. If he was alive though his smarmy mug would be all over AlJezeera.
Luv... I am certain that we are always "Looking For Him", and rightly so. But how can tens of thousands of people, both on the ground and through surveilance methods that have cost billions and are quite able, FAILED to confirm one way or the other, that he is or isn't alive?
Well if he is dead his followers probably don't want anyone to know the US killed him. If he is dead and his body has been disposed, it would be very difficult to prove unless one of his henchmen came out and told us.
Egg is on the face of the CIA, NSA, and all those in the intelligence community. There is no egg on the face of the CIA or NSA or any organization simply because they can't find bin Laden. I don't know why you expect that they should be able to find him.
Get ready for war, Naradar.
Today is Friday and I go to my Hindu temple. I will light an incense stick and do a pooja to my Elephant God to keep our boys safe and minimize mayhem.
Abortion foes should really not gloat over the death and desperation war inflicts jethro. Shame on you.
No one is gloating.
hey jethro - I got an e-mail from an Indian classmate of mine who works for Aramco in Riyadh. He wanted me to offer prayers on his behalf - he cannot do it in our ally SA since Hinduism is not allowed there. Ironically , he used to work for Aramco in Iraq and was freely allowed to worship there and even had a Hindu temple in his home. Go figure.
Irony abounds these days, doesn't it, Naradar?
The US is bringing down a secular government to, in part, protect a religiously intolerant one.
But you have to look to the next step. If it's possible to change Iraq, it must be possible to change Saudi Arabia, too,
Naradar 2/7/03 10:39am
Jethro cares only if you are a Christian.
:)
hey jethro - I got an e-mail from an Indian classmate of mine who works for Aramco in Riyadh. He wanted me to offer prayers on his behalf - he cannot do it in our ally SA since Hinduism is not allowed there. Ironically , he used to work for Aramco in Iraq and was freely allowed to worship there and even had a Hindu temple in his home. Go figure.
Is there any reason I should care?
Jethro cares only if you are a Christian.
No, I don't care about how the Saudis or for that matter any other country handles religion.
jethro bodine 2/7/03 11:09am
Jethro.
this is not a personal Attack or anything.. I have debated you for some time and I have read many of your posts.
And this is my impression of you and your views.
You are the worst that America can produce in its citizenry.
When the liberal founding fathers came up with a secular constitutionon the basis of "all men are created equal", folks like you then must have had a hard time dealing with the fact, why this country was not declared a Christian country. Why certain groups of people were not elevated than others.
When Slavery was inplace... folks who thought like you, thought that it was their fundemental right to do that.
When Jim Crowe was in place.. folks like you , argued for it and hated folks like MLK Jr. who questioned them.
Thank God, Folks who think like you are relegated to the dustbin of history.
This country has been making progress, and living up to the promises enshrined in the Constitution.. no matter what folks like you think or try to stop that progress..
Deal with it.
:)
You are the worst that America can produce in its citizenry.
Thank you so much. But I am not worthy of that title. I think you are much more fitting than I. However having said that there may be some that are more deserving of it than you, but you are a true contestant for the title.
When the liberal founding fathers came up with a secular constitution on the basis of "all men are created equal", folks like you then must have had a hard time dealing with the fact, why this country was not declared a Christian country. Why certain groups of people were not elevated than others.
You need to understand that while the intention MAY have been to create a secular federal government the intent was to allow the states and their citizenry determine religious matters. The states could, if they so chose, have a state church. Many of them did and had state churches for years. Folks like you seem not to understand that.
Folks like you just may have done that. Like I said you appear to be the one that goes with what ever is in vogue. If you knew anything about me, as you say that you do, you would know that I generally don't go with whatever is in vogue.
liberal point of view:
These people think Bush looks indecisive on Iraq. What a poor perception of reality.
By the way Jethro...which states had sponsored religions AFTER the Constitution was accepted by the states?
Nine of the original 13 had established religions, I believe. Massachusetts had an established religion until the 1830's.
How many do now?
They can't due to federal usurpation of an undelegated power.
There were many things that the states got away with in the beginning, that they can no longer get away with, like Slavery for one, but you see, cooler-heads prevailed, and stopped these injustices and illegalities, long ago.
That is the key problem with liberals, they think the states got away with things in the absence of federal power. Sorry, fold, that was what used to be called freedom. Freedomm meaning being free form control of a centralized government. As for slavery it was abolished by constitutional process, although I do believe the southern states were coerced into supporting it.
Now, fold, banning prayer in school and constitutional protection of abortion were not instituted by legitimate constitutional law. They were federal power grabs not supported in any way by any reasonable reading of the document.
But make no mistake, fold, slavery was not illegal under federal law until December 1865.
NO state can establish ANY religion, and that is CLEARLY pointed out in the Constitution.
Under a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution a state can establish a religion. And that was the recognized reading of the Constitution, I believe, well into the 20th Century. Not until the 1940's did the Supreme Court come up with the nonsense of applicablity of the bill of rights to state government. And the incorporation doctrine, my friend, was pure politics and not legal reasoning.
It is only because the courts TOOK that long that they finally HAD to dissolve any formal state religion.
I don't believe the federal courts had anything to do with dissolving state churches. The federal government did not get involved in those matters until the 20th century.
That is the problem with Lunatic-Fringe Conservatives like you, they re-write history As-They-Go.
I am rewriting nothing. What I don't understand is that you don't even question what it is that you believe and why you believe it. If you think I am so wrong I suggest you show me where I went astray.
So what religion should the Minnesota and Misoouri establish jethro??
Will there be a state with Hinduism as its religion?
If not do I get sent back to India??
And many blacks espouse Islam. Do they get sent back to the African continent they were brought from in slave galleys??
OH and... It is more correctly, "Federal Enforcement of Amendments to the Constitution, forbidding the establishment or Religions", by the states, or by the government, in any form.
Those amendments were never meant to apply to the states, fold. They did not apply until some liberals on the Supreme Court decided that somehow the 14th amendment allowed the federal government to impose some of the amendments (exactly which ones know one is sure) over state sovereignty.
Now the prime example of how this was a power grab is the language of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment specifically says that states cannot deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law. Now this language is the same language contained in the fifth amendment. Therefore, the 14th amendment clearly intended to impose that particular amendment on the states. The 14th amendment does not say anything about establishing religion. If the drafters of the 14th amendment could specifically state that life liberty and property could not be taken from any one without due process of law, don't you think the drafters could have just as easily stated that states couldn't establish religion, if that were their intent? Don't you think that if the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment was to impose all the bill of rights on state government that they could have written that?
Here is the exact words of the 1st ammendment:
It says "Congress", but does not mention the states. I am not saying that you are wrong Bill, but how does that ammendment stop a state from establishing a religion?
If that is what the citizens want.
the 13th amendment supposedly abolishes slavery and has 2 sections
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress
shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I guess according to Dan and jethro slavery is also legal if done by the states.
Boy - do all you Minnesotans think thusly!!
What do you think "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction," means, Naradar?
From the United States Government Printing Office
It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration
[[Page 971]]
of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.''\7\
Ask Jethro to explain the three "Tests" which the Court uses to either accept or condemn any state sponsored religion, and under which they have consistently ruled that ANY established state-religion, violates the First Amendment.
I see that you miss the point. The question is not what the current state of the law is but how we got to the current state of the law. I say to you that we got to the current state of the law through ignoring the Constitutional rules themselves. It was done by poilitcs and not by law.
Ask Jethro to explain the three "Tests" which the Court uses to either accept or condemn any state sponsored religion, and under which they have consistently ruled that ANY established state-religion, violates the First Amendment.
We got to the tests because of the fallacy of the incorporation doctrince of the 14th amendment. The federal government was never intended to have any power over religion in any state.
What is "Bull," fold?
So how did we get from "congress shall not" to "local, state and federal shall not"?
"I say to you that we got to the current state of the law through ignoring the Constitutional rules themselves. It was done by poilitcs "
ROFLMAO..
thank God we did it by the process of Politics and not by the process of using guns and violence.
Ahem.. Just incase you missed it.. Thats why we have Politicians..
:)
Your interpretation is BULL, Jethro.
YOU, are smarter than the Nine wise "People" in D.C....?
Give it a rest.
It has nothing to do with intelligence or the lack thereof. I am saying that the incorporation doctrine was the result of politics. It is not supported by the plain reading of the Constitution and it not supported by historical background.
thank God we did it by the process of Politics and not by the process of using guns and violence.
Ahem.. Just incase you missed it.. Thats why we have Politicians..
It appears I should have said it was done by politics not LAW. I forget that sometime I have to deal with simpletons here. Judges are not supposed to be politicians. They are supposed to read the law and the Constitution and determine what the intent of the drafters were and enforce that intent. In your world you don't need politicians, it appears, you need judges. It is people of your persuasion that need judges because you will never get the results you seek through the political process.
The Constitution is a Living Document. If we interpreted it in a static, read-only form, we would have anarchy.
That, is what YOU have never understood...Jethro.
What you don't seem to understand is that the "living document" nonsense is just an attempt to justify judicial rulings that cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. It is used to achieve political goals that cannot be achieved through the political process. The Constitution is a rule book, that is all. Either you follow the rules, you get the rules changed through the rule changing process or you break the rules. Those that claim the Constitution is a "living document" are breaking the rules.
Jethro...isn't the document "Changed" legitimately by one of the three branches of government,(sometimes the Congress, Sometimes the Judiciary) laid out perfectly, so that anyone can understand what they are?
You are saying that it NEVER changes, or if it does, it is because malcontents have done so, by some dishonest means.
That is crap, and it is false.
I do not know what you mean by your first paragraph. None of the three branches can "change" the constitution. The judicial branch does interpret what it means if it is ambiguous. In so doing the Court's duty is to determine what was meant by the drafters and try to enforce it. If people do not like what it was that the drafters intended there is a mechanism for changing the constitution.
The argument about religion, the US constitution et al has been waged endlessly. I have butted heads on this issue in several Forums. Everything is regurgitated puke.
The courts will ultimately reenforce one viewpoint - based on the existing po;itical propensity. When the political winds change, it will swing the opposite way.
This is what renders the noble ideals of the US constitution utterly meaningless. The American constitition has been bastardized just as badly as any 3rd world nation run by a dictator.
However it will be the compulsion of the American citizenry that will keep values like seperation of Church and state, abortion rights , affirmative action alive and flourishing. The choice may not be dictated by reasoned logic or punditry - but as long as a majority wants it in the US, it will remain enshrined.
The advocates for each position will make their case vehemently and volubly.
As of now the State should stay the fuck out of anyones religion, a woman has the right to dictate what she wants to do with what is in her womb and we deem it necessary to give a leg up to those who need it.
Till the passions rise to alter it, we advocates of these positions win and will strive to keep it this way.
Really? Then what are "Amendments", and why are they proposed, voted on and added? That WAS the point, fold. There is a political process for changing the constitution.Why are new laws constantly being drafted and accepted and reviewed by the Supreme Courts, to see if they violate any of those Amendments? Because all legislation is supposed to be within the delegated power of the constitution. geeeeezzzzzz....And why does the President have a "Veto" power, if not to stop laws(acts) or provisions within laws that he feels are not right? You don't appear to be making a distinction between the constitution and federal statutes, fold.
No, I am sorry, but you don't make sense. I don't make sense?!!!!!The Constitution is constantly being reviewed, changed and tweaked by "Acts" of Congress, and the Courts review these "Acts", to see if they violate the many "Amendments", and if found not to, they are considered the law, just as much as and in concert with, any of the Amendments. The acts of congress are not constitutional amendments.
However it will be the compulsion of the American citizenry that will keep values like seperation of Church and state, abortion rights , affirmative action alive and flourishing. The choice may not be dictated by reasoned logic or punditry - but as long as a majority wants it in the US, it will remain enshrined. You mean as long as they are ignorant of US history. Thank you teachers unions.
Till the passions rise to alter it, we advocates of these positions win and will strive to keep it this way. You will eventually lose, one way or the other.
Turkey calls for emergency consultations after 3 allies block military planning to protect Turkey from Iraqi missile attack
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3644185.html
Guess the French and Germans are doing everything they can to make sure they become more irrelevant. And some still want to take them seriously ? They don't want to even plan for possible attacks from Iraq? Which would most certainly happen. No, let's not even plan. Yes, let's heed the French and German examples. Good idea.
Why have a war and shed American blood for oil in Iraq??
Send the French, Germans, Belgians and Russians to permanently police Iraq, perennially inspect for WMD's, ensure Iraq's oil revenue goes only to its people.
In other words let the UN do in Iraq what little boy bush wants to do.
We can do that after Saddam is removed.
Germany, France and Belgium have once more shown their thinly-disguised racism. They've also been procrastinating on Turkey's entry into the EU.
Viva la France!
Watched "Casablanca" last night, just because the French have been getting kicked around lately.,
Germany, France and Belgium have once more shown their thinly-disguised racism. They've also been procrastinating on Turkey's entry into the EU.
How about anti-semitism? They seem to want Iraq to take out Israel for all they care.
Watched "Casablanca" last night, just because the French have been getting kicked around lately.,
How does "Casablanca" give a good impression of the French? I mean the French guy was a two faced weasel in the movie. Must be something to the stereotype.
Tought times ahead for the travel industry
Liberal conspiracy theory:
Memo to Pres. Bush:
WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BIN LADEN!!
Why do you let him mock you like this?
Yea, You guys are right. Nobody's looking for him. I mean it wouldn't make someone even more popular if he was found. So I'm sure they've just packed thier bags and quit looking for him. Unless of course you're advocating invading Pakistan or every other country that he might be in. There's over 60 countries where Al Quieda is active. We can't find people wanted in this country. It's a taller order doing so where law enforcement is substandard or corrupt and over half the population is sympathetic to him. You're right though I'm sure we've quit looking for him. Geeez.
I still think he is dead. I think the tape we heard yesterday is a fake or was recorded in the past. If he was still alive I think he would have sent in a video by now.
I agree Wolvie.
IMO I think he's dead too. If he were, what better way to give the U.S the finger and show the rest of the world he's still alive. And to show his followers how Allah protected him from the infidels. Some say that he isn't doing video because he doesn't want people to know he's alive. Well sending audio is doing the same thing. A video of him with a dated newspaper etc. would be the ultimate F.U. and from everything I've read on the guy he'd do it in a heartbeat and want to do just that. I think he's buried in some cave or in the ground somewhere. And if he is may he rot in hell and his 72 virgins turn out to be really ugly old prostitutes with a screaming case of the clap. If he was alive though his smarmy mug would be all over AlJezeera.
please explain why you think it is ignorant, fold.
Luv... I am certain that we are always "Looking For Him", and rightly so. But how can tens of thousands of people, both on the ground and through surveilance methods that have cost billions and are quite able, FAILED to confirm one way or the other, that he is or isn't alive?
Well if he is dead his followers probably don't want anyone to know the US killed him. If he is dead and his body has been disposed, it would be very difficult to prove unless one of his henchmen came out and told us.
Egg is on the face of the CIA, NSA, and all those in the intelligence community. There is no egg on the face of the CIA or NSA or any organization simply because they can't find bin Laden. I don't know why you expect that they should be able to find him.