(OT) : The Powers Within the US Constitution -wrt- ConstitutionIntentionally Vague
 

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/

(OT) : DAVE Speaks Out on Major Hypocrites and Imperfect Slobs
 

On Sep 5, 10:33*am, dave wrote:
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.

Speak for Yourself Dave
I say : SPEAK FOR YOURSELF DAVE !

dave - you are so 'special' - pal ~ RHF

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

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

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. They created a truly
_limited_ government, a unique and highly beneficial accomplishment. It
is a tragedy beyond words that their system has been overthrown.


When Reagan deregulated the media and defunded education he sealed our
fate. There's nothing left to save.

(OT) : DAVE Speaks Out on Major Hypocrites and Imperfect Slobs
 

RHF wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:33 am, wrote:

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.

Speak for Yourself Dave
I say : SPEAK FOR YOURSELF DAVE !



You are correct. YOU have nothing in common with our brave ancestors.

(OT) : ?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence; the US Constitution;and the US Bill of Rights Worthy of Our Praise ?
 

RHF wrote:


I say : Praise Be The US Constitution
and the Founding Fathers - Amen ~ RHF

Plus the US Declaration of Independence Proclaims
Our All American 'Unalienable Rights'*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence


Natural rights are inherent. That's what makes them unalienable. No one
can take them away because no one granted them.

"Nature" and "Nature's God" are just more fluff the great unwashed. The
founders were very skeptical about the idea of living gods.

(OT) : ?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence; the USConstitution; and the US Bill of Rights Worthy of Our Praise ?
 

On Sep 6, 7:43*pm, RHF wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:38*am, dave wrote:- - RHF wrote:

- -
- - I say : Praise Be The US Constitution
- - and the Founding Fathers - Amen ~ RHF
- -
- - Plus the US Declaration of Independence Proclaims
- - Our All American 'Unalienable Rights'*
- -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

- Natural rights are inherent.
- That's what makes them unalienable.
- No one can take them away
- because no one granted them.

Dave you would be 'naturally' right ;;-}}

- "Nature" and "Nature's God" are
- just more fluff the great unwashed.
- The founders were very skeptical
- about the idea of living gods.

Dave of 'you' - i myself am very "skeptical" ~ RHF

and Dave . . .
How Do You Separate 'Natural-&-Nature' ?
and what is "Nature's God" ?

Dave - 'the idea of living gods'
is man's {humanity's} idea.
Would a God Live {Have Life} As Man Does ?
Can Man's Living Define God's "BE-ing"

Dave - "BE-Ing" -that's- Existing
and Existing may and may not involve
Living and Life as we Humans Define It.

The Universe {Earth, Moon, Sun, Stars} Exists :
Do You Deny It ! -but- Is It Alive ?

The Air, a Rock, Dirt, Water All Exist :
Do You Deny Them ! -but- Are They Alive ?

The Plant, Animal, Insect, Amoeba All Exist :
Do You Deny Them ! -how- Do We Define Alive ?

Humans Exist : Do You Deny This !
Have We Humans Existence ?
Are We Not Living ?
Do We Have Life ?
Are We "BE-ing" Alive ?

God's Existence -or- Not : Does Not Depend on
Humanity and Mankind's Definition of 'Living' [.] ©

Dave - may your 'existence' BE
your "existence" - pal ~ RHF
*.
*.
?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence;
the US Constitution; and the US Bill of Rights
Worthy of Our Praise ?http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bbaa4d8989f0ca
*.
I say : Praise Be The US Constitution
and the Founding Fathers - Amen ~ RHF
*.
Plus the US Declaration of Independence Proclaims
Our All American 'Unalienable Rights'*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence
*.
* 'Unalienable Rights' = In-Alienable Rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
*.
Including Out 100% America US 'Bill of Rights'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
*.
God {Allah} Bless All These Founding Documents
and we all say : amen, Amen. and AMEN ! ~ RHF
*.
?Q? Are the US Declaration of Independence;
the US Constitution; and the US Bill of Rights
Worthy of Our Praise ? --- YES I SAY ~ RHF
*.
*.

For a historical document,written in the 18th century, I always
wonder: why is it that laws of an utmost importance way back must be
followed to the letter ? Considering all the incredible advances in
science and lifestyle ( how many small independent farmers do we have
left in this country?), instant communication,planes,trains,space
stations and satellites, the list is much longer than it seems at
first, how can we claim what was a matter of literally life and death
230 years ago must be invariably applied to in modern life ! I just
hope that the Supreme Court justices are mostly normal and decent
human beings and don't interpret the Law in a perverted and demented
fashion... like it happens, quite often.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

A few weeks ago, I bought an old metal security/burglar door for $15.00
from that democrap who lives behind that house next door to doggy's
couch.That door is the kind of door that is made of thin wall square
section tubes, up and down, y'all have seen those doors before.

So, a couple of weeks ago I brought that door around front to be sure it
will fit up ok, it will.What it is, that door has some rust (Rust Never
Sleeps) on it and that flimsy screen wire on that door is ripped and
raggety.I am in the process now of fixing that door up so it will look
as good as one of those new doors.What it was though, a couple of weeks
ago when I brought that door around front, those democraps who live
across the street from doggy's couch, they were laughing their democrap
asses off at my door.

Looka here, this neighborhood isn't nowhere near as safe as it used to
be, if ya get me drift? If somebody busts into their democrap house,,,,
I AM GOING TO LAUGH MY IRISH ARSE OFF AT THOSE democraps!
cuhulin

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day wrote:



Then look at the school reports athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence in schools, but also brags that parents
hit their children, another form of violence.