SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 7:30*pm, wrote:
- According to
-*http://www.akc.org/breeds/australian_cattle_dog
- my little couch buddy doggy is extremely intelligent.
- How/why she puts up with me, I just don't know.
- Maybe she takes pity on me?
- http://www.cattledog.comhttp://www.acdca.org
- WOOF WOOF.
- cuhulin

Often our little Animal Friends have
a far Bigger Heart then we do , , ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXoNnffVKc

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 7:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

- You have to choose your poison,
- or go live in Antarctica.

That's a Chilling Thought . . .

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:



On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

- It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states.
- Look what had happened since they have joined
- the Common Market and EU !

A lot of time and history has transpired between
the 'Ancient Greek City-States' of many Centuries
ago and what is now called "Modern Greece" today . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_modern_Greece

(OT) : The US Federal Government is simply the 'Limited Agent' of "WeThe People"
 

On Sep 14, 4:05*pm, dave wrote:
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.

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

Regards,
JS

It's a little late for that.

- Where exactly does it say"very limited government"?

'Special Dave',

All Un-Alienable Rights That Are Not Vested
in 'We The People'
* and clearly defined as the Duties of the Federal
Government {Federation}
* are Reserved To The Individual {United} States . . .

-ergo- Limited Role* of the US Federal Government [.]

* Duties and Responsibilities {Functions}

- If the government is the people

-special-dave- 'We The People' -are- "We The People"

- why would they want to limit the people?

The US Federal Government is simply the
'limited' agent of "We The People"
-since- "We The People" reside in the
Individual States except for 'DC'
-and- "We The People" are 1st and foremost
are Citizens of those Individual States
-and- in-addition Citizen of the Federation
of those States 'collectively' The USA.

The 'Primary Agent' of "We The People" are
the 'Individual States' that we reside in . . .
NOT The US Federal Government which was
collectively formed by the 'Individual States'
as the 'Primary Agent' of "We The People" as
a Collective Umbrella Organization for National
Defense, International Diplomacy and Global
Commerce.

A Citizen of the "California Republic" [USA] ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

John Smith wrote:
On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

More vagueness. I think you mean the states. The amendment before the
one you attempted to quote says we have other rights, besides those
listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And "the people" manifests in our form of government as the House of
Representatives.

I'll make a deal with you. If you agree to disband the military, except
for a National Guard, I'll give up the Department of Education.

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking. . . {Tough Love}
 

RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, wrote:


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

'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
or out of love and goodness ?


It is wrong to strike another, except when in fear of immediate threat
to life and limb.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

Day Brown wrote:


Back before agribusiness replaced family farms, it was like this all
over rural America. The land here is too steep for the large contiguous
tracts agribusiness likes.

I sold my farm back in 1986.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 14, 10:18*pm, wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:11*am, bpnjensen wrote:





On Sep 14, 9:18*pm, wrote:

On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

Yes - they were much smaller than 2010 USA. *A lot of history
transpired between the Fall of Greece I and the Fall of Greece II !!!

Modern Greece is, I am afraid, in a position similar to California.
My theory - The European Union, of which they are now a part, holds
the keys to the treasury and the money machine, much like the US
Treasury. *The larger conglomeration can print money if it needs to
pay off its debts (albeit at an inflated rate), while the individual
nation-state cannot do this (as Greece used to be able to do). *Nether
Greece nor California can print its own $$$ like the larger system, so
they are in economic hot water.

Bruce Jense4n- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That sounds like the 'Big Brother' is not a fiction at all...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

....but in the US it's been this way since dirt. Each individual state
is it's own "nation" so to speak, with its own government and issues
to address, but the U.S. is Union of many states, is a supreme entity
with an overarching legal framework (the Constitution) and is the one
that prints the common currency. We here in the U.S. (especially
conservatives, generally) complain that we don't want to be like, or
be part of, the European Union, deeming it socialist and so forth -
but in reality, the EU is based loosely on what the U.S. already
is...a larger framework for the common good of all the member states.

California could, I suppose, print its own "greenbacks" to start to
pay off its debts - I am not an economist per se, so I do not know
what advantage that would gain us - but I doubt if it would work very
well, as currency is supposed to be based on *something*, either gold
or silver or other valuable commodity, which we do not have in
abundance just now. Such is the case now with Greece - its drachmas
are no longer much good by themselves.

Bruce

SPECIAL : US Constitution Intentionally Vague About Spanking . .. {Tough Love}
 

On Sep 15, 10:04*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:47*am, Grendel wrote:





On Sep 15, 8:28*am, dave wrote:

RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, *wrote:

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

'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
or out of love and goodness ?

It is wrong to strike another, except when in fear of immediate threat
to life and limb.

Well, I have to say, that can be ranked as the most idiotic,
simplistic, ignorant and outright bull**** statement made on the
internet today.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

Your rationale is noted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rationale? The ignorance and bull**** factor of that statement is
self explanatory to anyone with a functioning brain.

But as both of you seem to lack that functioning brain, I will gladly
explain just a little of the rationale as to why the statement is
bull****.

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:
-Football
-Rugby
-Lacrosse
-Water polo
-Wrestling
-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate
-Ice hockey,
-Boxing of all kinds,
-Consensual S&M sex.
-Friendly wrestlling matches
---Just to name a few

Third:
The following activities that MIGHT RESULT in physical contact would
have to be banned on moral grounds:
-Baseball
-Basketball
-Field hockey
-Netball
-Squash
-Golf
-Jogging
-Children playing (would have to ban playgrounds also...dangerous
places)
-Any sex, period (which you obviously are not familiar with).
-Walking down the street.
-Going outside your house at any time.
---Just to name a very few.

Might as well outlaw that entire 'Right to Assemble', too, as their's
always the possibility you might accidentally bump into someone.

Idiots.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm not cynical, just experienced."