100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Drivinmenutz
|
|
|
ya know,, if its not 'in there' its not in there its nowhere near as complicated as its being made pointing to whats in the DECLERATION doesn't prove thst something is in the CONSTITUTION,,, Yet the basis are covered. Again, I agree, some Lawyers separate the documents, them try to use the most literal modern day translation on the constitution to their benefit. Direct, literal phrases, of which you speak, are not there, especially since those words ("fair trial" , etc.) could not be used given their subjective nature. By that logic, the words "right to not be stabbed in the neck with a no.2 pencil" is not in there either. Making this whole topic rather pointless... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Wed 07/09/14 06:18 PM
|
|
I dont believe anyone in this thread has read Obamas book,,, unless you count finding snippets around the internet,, nor has Obama tried to ban 'all guns',,, then again, neither did Hitler if thats the comparison being attempted,,,, dont need to read his book his book carries no weight in the greater scheme of things i have read the constitution and its preceding document that fathered it the declaration of independence those are the written articles that carry weight in this country not some book written by a fly by the seat of the pants politician that cant obey his oath of office someone claimed to read the book,,,,,no one stated that it was required for anyone to read it as to the declaration of independence, no matter how often we wish to tie it to the constitution , it is still a SEPERATE document yes it is a separate document no one said it wasn't and the college books calculus 1 and calculus 2 are separate books and separate courses but you can not take two till can show you can do one lol,and? calculus is a topic that is all inclusive of different levels of studying the constitution is a DOCUMENT, quite diffrent from a TOPIC for study now, I can speak of what is true in calculus, as a subject, and point to any document about CALCULUS but I Cant teach from a Calc II book and then score a student off for not knowing what was in that CALC II assignment from the CALC II lesson, by claiming its in the CALC II book,, if its not in the book,,,, but if the student is not knowledgeable about what is in the 1st they will not understand the 2nd yes, but they  wont be able to claim its in the second if its NOT IN THE SECOND,, in the continuation of a topic, one has to progressively retain information to grasp what follows the only thing that needs to be understood to understand the Constitution, is english nobecaus the same people that wrote the constitution signed the declaration of independence thus the spirit of the declaration is the foundation of the Constitution not at all I signed my insurance contract AFTER I signed my auto title but the 'spirit' of my auto title has nothing to do with my insurance contract seperate companies, seperate documents, seperate interests,,,lol whats on my auto title is not therefore automatically in my insurance contract,,, This is not a good example as the "company" we are speaking of is this same in both documents, and it involves the same interests. To expand upon an earlier comment; You will not see 1+1 = 2 in a calculus book. However it's an understood concept that would prevent you from being able to understand the outcome of calculus equations. This can be applied to our constitution. Lawyers will pervert its amendments. Legislative officials may make amendments. But when it violates the Declaration of Independence it then becomes a problem. These two documents probably should not be considered any more separate than the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches. If we separated them, the president would be supreme ruler. An example you gave before, was the "right to eat" not being in the constitution. Yet, food is needed for survival. If one were to violate this than it would violate a "right to life". The Declaration of Independence now points the to public's right to take up arms (which is SUPPOSED to be protected by our 2nd amendment), and over-throw our current corrupt officials denying us that "inalienable right". Checks and balances. Governments are typically a corrupt entity as power corrupts. I have mentioned before this concept is timeless and we haven't passed through some mystical void that makes it any less true today than it was 300, or 3,000 years ago. If all the decision for rule was left to the constitution, and all power would reside in those that write amendments, thus surpassing our checks and balances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually, I dont even think the constituiton needed to be written , if the declaration was the law of the land because 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happinesss', pretty much covers anything someone wants it to,,, imho,,, however, Im glad it was, since at the time of this everyone being created equal to rights of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' africans and women were not at all given 'equal' access to any of these things,,,,or treated 'equal' in these rights,,,, The original constitution (to include the Declaration of Independence) was ahead of it's time (and still is). Culture had not matured enough to appreciate the concept of being equal. Just as culture today has not yet grown to appreciate the responsibility of being independent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Wed 07/09/14 03:19 PM
|
|
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. and therefore, though I may argue that I have the 'right to eat', I could not use the COHSITTUON as the basis most likely I would use the popular and vague 'inalienable right' argument about 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness' Yes you could. 9th amendment. Let me further this by saying, what YOU think and what constitutional law allows is not the same thing. the ninth amendment says something about 'right to eat'? really? let me check,, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people NOPE, not there let me add, the column is about the flaws in the thinking of 'literalists' who use the LITERAL and verbatim, words of the Constitution to define everything,,,, what is LITERALLY there, and what one THINKS it means, are not the same thing,, This is where the declaration of independence comes in. The right to "life" would be violated if citizens were denied the "right to eat". So, according to the declaration of independence it would be the right and responsibility of the people take up their arms (which are SUPPOSED to be protected by the 2nd amendment) and overthrow the the corrupt officials who are denying their "inalienable right" to "life". I believe the people you are trying to point out are the lawyers who pervert the constitution by separating it from other documents. You are correct in the flawed logic of, "it's not in the constitution word for word the right doesn't exist". So I guess these documents cannot be separated, any more than the executive branch can be separated from the judicial branch, as one is a check/balance for the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the costs of providing goods and services and delivering them to masses never goes away either,,, Well said comrade but that should not be the job of government. And that my friends, is what we have lost sight of. Many do not understand our system of government only works if we maintain a certain set of principles. America was founded on the principle of independence and responsibility. Funny how things go awry when you abandon this concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Wed 07/09/14 02:37 PM
|
|
whats to be baffled about really? federal government takes manpower and resources for which money is needed state government takes manpower and resources for which money is needed social security pays money out for which money must be taken in medicare pays money out for which money must be taken in documenting and tracking vehicles and owners and their legality takes manpower and resources for which money must be taken in for most things, they arent truly 'free' to produce or deliver and so there are expenses charged to cover the coss,,, While it may seem so, most are not blind to the necessity of some tax. Problem is these taxes are not efficiently utilized. Middle and upper class citizens would be better off if they were to invest the money themselves instead of putting into social security. 95% would be better off investing in their own medical expense account rather than donate to medicare/medicaid (or any type of insurance by that matter). You said it yourself, when the population was lower, we didn't need to pay as many taxes. Yet taxes, as a percentage, have increased drastically. Why did the percentage increase when the population increased? If 100 million only had to pay 15% of their annual income in taxes, why do 300 million have to pay 50% of their annual income? Something isn't right. This only points to how inefficient our system really is. While some countries with higher taxes have citizens who are wealthier, it is completely ludicrous to believe that the more money you give the government, the richer you get. Wealth only comes from capital. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Wed 07/09/14 02:43 PM
|
|
In reference to the question in the title... Not sure. I do believe citizens would be quite baffled if they actually knew how much they pay in taxes. Fed income tax State income tax Social security tax Medicare tax FICA Vehicle registrations Property tax Gasoline tax sales/excise taxes Inflation (yes this is actually a tax) Tolls Random fees/permits   you took the words right off my keyboard lol About time I got to em first...  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yes I am giving him credit for getting Osama Bin Laden, but not full, the intelligence was gained under enhanced interrogations under the Bush administration. Not to mention he should have realized Pakistans first response would have been to launch fighters, we should have had ours in the air during the operation outside the Pakistani border ready to go and intercept any jets they send out, were damn lucky the SEALS made it out of there. You are right about the interrogations. In fact, the same intelligence agents that started the search in 2001, were the ones to find bin laden in pakistan. They wanted to bomb the compound and end it. But the administration insisted there be evidence. It was mostly a political ploy for re-election. As a matter of fact one of the seals, when they were flying out of pakistan, was quoted saying "you guys know we just got obama re-elected right?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand, how is a list of Democrats, from the SOUTH, opposed to civil rights surprise anyone? Because Republicans from the south supported it. no confederate republican supported civil rights This is a broad statement. And like most broad statements it is a false one. You do realize, while the north fought to free slaves, the south fought for state rights (not to keep slavery)? Many do not know this. Most wars are not "good vs evil" like we are led to believe... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with the exception of the vet, sounds like a typical turfwar one starts shooting the others shoot back,, but thankfully there weren't more injured,,,, He did everything by the book. He RETURNED fire, and was accurate while being shot at. These are the people that should, and NEED to be armed. Veterans, especially those that have been in combat, actually have a lot over your typical police officer. The training and focus needed to function in such a situation is already completed and to a much greater degree than achieved in any police academy. We need to keep ammo cheap enough and ensure there are friendly places where these citizens can maintain that training and marksmanship. And furthermore, in reference to the article, its a good thing the courts finally lifted the ban on concealed carry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Gresham man fired on a group of people leaving a party, only to be shot himself by one of the victims, a military service member with a concealed carry permit, authorities said. The military member and three others were leaving a party Friday night in the 11700 block of South Union Avenue in West Pullman, Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Hain said during a court hearing Sunday. One of the victims had noticed a cup of liquor on top of her vehicle and asked attendees of a party next door who it belonged to, Hain said. When she removed it, Denzel A. Mickiel approached her, shouting obscenities and threatening her and her friends, according to Hain and court records. Mickiel, 22, went into the residence, returned with a gun and began firing at the group, she said. As Mickiel fired at the victims’ vehicle, the military member retrieved his gun and took cover near the vehicle’s front fender, according to Hain. Two unidentified people also shot at the group, she said. The military service member fired two shots and struck Mickiel twice, she said. A 22-year-old woman in the group was injured by Mickiel in the shooting, suffering wounds to the arm and back, according to court records and Hain. The four victims escaped the melee in two vehicles as two unidentified people continued to shoot at them, Hain said. Mickiel was identified as the gunman by witnesses, she said. The injured woman was stabilized and taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center, police said. Mickiel, of the 7600 block of South Honore Street, was transported to Advocate Christ in critical condition, according to police. He remained hospitalized Sunday and did not appear in court but was ordered held on $950,000 bail. He is charged with attempted murder. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-military-member-concealed-carry-shoots-attacker-20140706,0,5324984.story Two shots. Two hits. Vet's got some street cred... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reference to the question in the title... Not sure. I do believe citizens would be quite baffled if they actually knew how much they pay in taxes.
Fed income tax State income tax Social security tax Medicare tax FICA Vehicle registrations Property tax Gasoline tax sales/excise taxes Inflation (yes this is actually a tax) Tolls Random fees/permits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous just as a 100 percent armed populous would be that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns' but who decides the govt that will opress sounds counter productive if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns, How? the government has weapons , if it really WANTS to oppress and ignore peoples rights, ,, like missiles, remote weapons,,etc,,, Yes and no. Governments never bomb their own country on a large scale as it would be to their own demise. Allies and enemies must be separated or those allies soon become enemies themselves. This is done on a more, up close, and personal level. Also, look at Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. You just need enough weaponry to be useful in skirmishes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 07/03/14 09:40 PM
|
|
I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous just as a 100 percent armed populous would be that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns' but who decides the govt that will opress sounds counter productive if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns, How? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the OP, Great post. Happy July 4th everybody!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the OP, Great post. Happy July 4th everybody!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And we will continue to defend our rights to bare arms, to be openly able to buy weapons capable of and used frequently to kill children in their classrooms, innocent people out on an evening and people who are trying to earn a living for a family at home. Not only that, we will fight to our very last breath to protect the religious fanaticism that holds back the education of our children, that stifles our scientific standing in the world and that stands now in such a way that the rest of the world mock us for our beliefs. God bless 'Murica! I do see education as being an issue. But a feel the need to establish a few points first. 1. Gun violence is not the issue here in the U.S. VIOLENCE is. It's a broad category which needs to be addressed. Even though homicides have decreased dramatically since the 1990's it still shouldn't be ignored. There is also to reason to leave out victims of stabbings (like the first 3 killed in california's "shootings"), beatings, strangling, or anything that takes lives. To go after guns is ignorance brought on by fear. 2. Education has been suffering not because we haven't removed the mention of "god" from our classrooms fast enough (schools are actual quite anti-religious of Christians), but because we've removed anything that could ever leave a child feeling inadequate. Meaning; these sports, games, and classroom exercises in which there cannot be a declared "winner", or the dumbing down of our textbooks as students cannot keep up. The notion (which is very popular now) where the main student body must slow down to allow the one struggling to keep up. Etc. etc. etc. All these things are fabricated. Combine this with technology that keeps our children from face-to face contact with others and you have a generation with a poor grasp of reality, and very little coping skills. That being said, our Country's principles are far beyond that of any other nation. If we were to actually follow our principles we wold research and explore why people are becoming more violent to find an answer, than address that answer, not through greater control, but through education and awareness, not through strict control. In fact the mentality that a population needs to be strictly controlled is historically much, much more dangerous to children than freedom is. Just saying... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murdered children are still lost... And ignorance won't save them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Pursuit of Happiness
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 07/03/14 09:49 AM
|
|
the declaration separated its writers from Grt Brtn,, and gave their reasons, relating to 13 colonies in 1776 the articles of confederation was then written in 177 for those 13 COLONIES the constitution then was written in 1787 to lay out the 'government' for those 13 colonies,,, after that, as the nation grew geographically, the constitution ( a living document, as they say) continued to be amended to adjust to the change in culture and populations,,,, I say all that to say, the declaration had a finite specific purpose, to separate from gr brtn whereas the constitution has a more infinite purpose to set a foundation and allow changes to the foundation based upon changes to the national cultures and peoples,,,, Actually its purpose was to also take it a step further and remind citizens of the heart behind our constitution. As if to say, "This is why we rebelled, when this starts happening again, something is wrong." Without going into too much detail, as i tend to get carried away with the subject, We the people must be willing to protest, and courageous enough to stand against our own government if it becomes too intrusive and no longer has our best interests at heart. I guess one could say it outlines the first, last, and biggest check and balance in a system designed around these checks and balances. Power corrupts. This fact is timeless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Right to a Fair Trial You will not find you exact words, no. However you will find synonyms or explanations of those words. I will start with one that is more obvious; "Fair" in "The Right to a Fair trial", is subjective. In our constitution; In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. "Public trial", by an "impartial jury", being "informed of the nature and cause of accusation", be "confronted by the witnesses against him" and "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" as well as "to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense", more specifically outlines a "fair trial". If the constitution were to say the words "fair trial" than people would be left to their devices on interpretation of what "fair" actually means. So to revisit, when saying we have a "right to a fair trial" is slang used to sum up the above mentioned amendment. Its a heck of a lot easier/quicker to say, and it sums things up fairly accurately. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
