On Sep 4, 8:12*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
for the United States of America.
{A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}

say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF

RHF wrote:

OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
for the United States of America.
{A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}

say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF
.
.

You are an idiot.

The Preamble carries no force of law.

(Does "defence" against disease count?)

(Can there be "domestic tranquility" without a middle class?)

On Sep 5, 6:40*am, dave wrote:
- - RHF wrote:
- - OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
- - We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
- - in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
- - Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
- - Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
- - Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
- - Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
- - and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
- - to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
- - do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
- - for the United States of America.
- - {A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}
- -
- - say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF
- - .
- - .

Dave -wrote- {proclaimed}

- You are an idiot.
{Dave proclaim it loud : YOU ARE AN IDIOT ! :-}

OK so in Dave's Bizzaro World Reciting the
"We the People" part of the US Constitution
makes someone an "Idiot"

But-Dave ! - Which Part of the US Constitution
Makes Anyone an Idiot !

Hey Dave then Yes I Am an Idiot for Loving My Country.

But-Dave ! - Are All Patriot Americans Idiots ?

- The Preamble carries no force of law.

But-Dave ! - It Has The Force of "We the People"

- (Does "defence" against disease count?)

But-Dave ! - Are You Talking About Biological Warfare ?
-or- The Disease of Obama-Care© ?

- (Can there be "domestic tranquility" without a middle class?)

But-Dave ! - Was there a Middle Class in 1776 ?

and -obtw- But-Dave ! - In The Obama-Nation©
"We the People" would be one big government
Classless Socialist Society.

this has been a 'but-dave' reply by rhf ~ RHF

On Sep 4, 10:32*pm, RHF wrote:
On Sep 4, 8:12*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:12*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

OK - What Does The US Constitution Say :
We the People of the United States, {Power To The People}
in Order to form a more perfect Union, {National Unity}
Establish Justice, {Not Preference for the Few }
Insure Domestic Tranquility, {Not Class Warfare}
Provide for the Common Defence, {Not a Police State}
Promote the General Welfare, {Freedom To Be Free}
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty {From God For The People}
to Ourselves and our Posterity, {Today and into the Future}
do Ordain and Establish this Constitution {Created By The People}
for the United States of America.
{A Republic : Government Accountable To The People}

say what you will : it says what it says ~ RHF
*.
*.

First of all, you wrote in lots of words that are not there. That's
your interpretation, and has little to do with my point.

The Constitution does not guarantee that the majority's will rules.
If it did, it would not have set up a Republic with the two houses of
Congress structured differently, a single person with power of
approval and veto, and a judiciary system that could override
everything. That was my point. The founders recognized that "shoot-
from-the-hip" rule by majority would and could be unjust and dangerous
to minorities.

Bruce

bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.


What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

dave wrote:
[...]
What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?



Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central
government to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws"
can possibly be constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
dave wrote:
[...]
What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?



Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central government
to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws" can possibly be
constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction is itself illegal.
(Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution for the federal
government even _knowing_ what you possess, much less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider scope --
but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the prevailing
standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired. They were major hypocrites
and therefore mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

On Sep 5, 9:26*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
dave wrote:

[...]

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

- Since the Constitution gives no power
- whatever to the central government to
- legislate on or control drugs, no federal
- drug "laws" can possibly be constitutional,

The US Constitution gives the US Congress
the Power To Legislate and Make "Laws"
-and- Everything else follows from that . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

The US Constitution Is NOT Intentionally Vague :
The US Constitution "IS" A Broad Brush Frame-Work

the us constitution just read it ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_us_constitution

and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On Sep 5, 6:34*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John *wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

Only if he can prove that a material exchange occurred. Otherwise, it
is pure hearsay and rumor.

On Sep 5, 12:11*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:34*am, dave wrote:



bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John *wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

- Only if he can prove that a material exchange occurred.
-*Otherwise, it is pure hearsay and rumor.

There are more Laws than that . . .

-and- the Material Facts are what they are

This Drug Deal 'On-the-Radio' would have to
have at least two parties to the conversation.
-if- the Second Party Admits to the Drug Deal
at least you have One-Witness to the Elements
of a Criminal Enterprise and a Criminal Conspiracy
[RICO Act] to Plan and Commit a Crime.
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

sound like 'book-em dan-o' ~ RHF