SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/17/10 24:42 , wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:22 am, Kevin Alfred
wrote:
On 9/16/2010 2:14 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:





"Kevin Alfred wrote in message
...

The founders must have been aware that such a situation could evolve,
hence their repeated words "Congress shall make no law..." -- surely the
most important statement in the entire document.

CONgress has been making unconstitutional law for many decades. First
there's the flagrant violation of the Second Amendment by regulating WHO may
own or carry a gun. They've been doing that one for a very long time, and
they just keep slipping in more BS under the flag of protecting the public.
Protecting the public is the job of the police, not the CONgress passing
unconstitutional law.

Then there's due process, double jeopardy and ex-post-facto. They get around
that by saying the law is not punitive, but "regulative". And the SCOTUS
goes right along with it.

You're right.

And the illegal usurpation of power has been going on for a very
long time, with huge spikes of illegal "law-making" occurring during
and after major wars. Practically everything the regime in
Washington does now is unconstitutional.

It's gone beyond illegality and actually reached the point of
insanity now.

At one time, I opined that these pretended "laws" ought to be void
because, among many other reasons, there were so many of them that
no one person could ever even read them all in a single lifetime,
let alone understand or obey them. (This excess of "laws," by the
way, converts us from a government of laws into a government of men
-- men who can cherry pick a victim and then cherry pick a "law" to
charge him with violating, since all have violated some. Tax laws
are among their favorites in this regard.)

But it's worse now. Multiple-thousand-page "laws" are passed by
legislators who never even bother to read them. And really, they
couldn't even if they wanted to -- there are too many. It's beyond
insane, beyond Kafkaesque. May the gods end it all soon.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, where in the US Constitution does it say that we must pay taxes
to the Federal government?

The 16th Amendment, for one.

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 16, 9:44*am, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

But it's worse now. Multiple-thousand-page "laws" are passed by
legislators who never even bother to read them. And really, they
couldn't even if they wanted to -- there are too many. It's beyond
insane, beyond Kafkaesque. May the gods end it all soon.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.

Why stop with the Constitution? *210 years ago people were generally a
lot smarter than they are now. Hell, look at the way they talked.

I'm all for returning to the principle that only Congress can declare
war. I'm also for confiscatory taxes to prevent family dynasties and
concentration of power at the top. *I'm for import duties to protect
domestic industry and for the abolition of standing armies. And the
pre-Marbury v Madison Supreme Court.

When you start pinin' for the good old days where do you stop?

And how, may we ask is it "that 210 years ago people were generally a
lot smarter than they are now" ? I was always told that most people
(worldwide) were mostly illiterate until very recently. And how can we
sample a spoken recording of such a time???

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion" . . .
 

On Sep 16, 11:08*am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/16/2010 6:36 AM, dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

There you good again Attacking Persons-of-Faith
and Singling out the Mormons for your Hate Speech.

The Mormons' plan for world domination doesn't stop at the border.

Well, I could live with that, even get a second wife outta' the deal ...
but I could rest easily if we wipe the radical mooselums out ... them I
could NOT deal with ... LOL

Regards,
JS

Mooselums will hook you up with many wives. They say it is legal. And
I find it very difficult dealing even with one !

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On Sep 17, 1:46*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/17/10 24:42 , wrote:





On Sep 16, 8:22 am, Kevin Alfred
wrote:
On 9/16/2010 2:14 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

"Kevin Alfred * *wrote in message
...

The founders must have been aware that such a situation could evolve,
hence their repeated words "Congress shall make no law..." -- surely the
most important statement in the entire document.

CONgress has been making unconstitutional law for many decades. *First
there's the flagrant violation of the Second Amendment by regulating WHO may
own or carry a gun. They've been doing that one for a very long time, and
they just keep slipping in more BS under the flag of protecting the public.
Protecting the public is the job of the police, not the CONgress passing
unconstitutional law.

Then there's due process, double jeopardy and ex-post-facto. They get around
that by saying the law is not punitive, but "regulative". And the SCOTUS
goes right along with it.

You're right.

And the illegal usurpation of power has been going on for a very
long time, with huge spikes of illegal "law-making" occurring during
and after major wars. Practically everything the regime in
Washington does now is unconstitutional.

It's gone beyond illegality and actually reached the point of
insanity now.

At one time, I opined that these pretended "laws" ought to be void
because, among many other reasons, there were so many of them that
no one person could ever even read them all in a single lifetime,
let alone understand or obey them. (This excess of "laws," by the
way, converts us from a government of laws into a government of men
-- men who can cherry pick a victim and then cherry pick a "law" to
charge him with violating, since all have violated some. Tax laws
are among their favorites in this regard.)

But it's worse now. Multiple-thousand-page "laws" are passed by
legislators who never even bother to read them. And really, they
couldn't even if they wanted to -- there are too many. It's beyond
insane, beyond Kafkaesque. May the gods end it all soon.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, where in the US Constitution does it say that we must pay taxes
to the Federal government?

* *The 16th Amendment, for one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

O, yes. Several states never ratified/or considered it. No wonder .

SPECIAL: Constitution intentionally vague
 

On 9/17/10 01:21 , wrote:
On Sep 17, 1:46 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 9/17/10 24:42 , wrote:





On Sep 16, 8:22 am, Kevin Alfred
wrote:
On 9/16/2010 2:14 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

"Kevin Alfred wrote in message
...

The founders must have been aware that such a situation could evolve,
hence their repeated words "Congress shall make no law..." -- surely the
most important statement in the entire document.

CONgress has been making unconstitutional law for many decades. First
there's the flagrant violation of the Second Amendment by regulating WHO may
own or carry a gun. They've been doing that one for a very long time, and
they just keep slipping in more BS under the flag of protecting the public.
Protecting the public is the job of the police, not the CONgress passing
unconstitutional law.

Then there's due process, double jeopardy and ex-post-facto. They get around
that by saying the law is not punitive, but "regulative". And the SCOTUS
goes right along with it.

You're right.

And the illegal usurpation of power has been going on for a very
long time, with huge spikes of illegal "law-making" occurring during
and after major wars. Practically everything the regime in
Washington does now is unconstitutional.

It's gone beyond illegality and actually reached the point of
insanity now.

At one time, I opined that these pretended "laws" ought to be void
because, among many other reasons, there were so many of them that
no one person could ever even read them all in a single lifetime,
let alone understand or obey them. (This excess of "laws," by the
way, converts us from a government of laws into a government of men
-- men who can cherry pick a victim and then cherry pick a "law" to
charge him with violating, since all have violated some. Tax laws
are among their favorites in this regard.)

But it's worse now. Multiple-thousand-page "laws" are passed by
legislators who never even bother to read them. And really, they
couldn't even if they wanted to -- there are too many. It's beyond
insane, beyond Kafkaesque. May the gods end it all soon.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW, where in the US Constitution does it say that we must pay taxes
to the Federal government?

The 16th Amendment, for one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

O, yes. Several states never ratified/or considered it. No wonder .

Actually, all but one.

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion". . .
 

On 9/16/2010 11:01 PM, wrote:

...
Mooselums will hook you up with many wives. They say it is legal. And
I find it very difficult dealing even with one !

Yeah, you and me both ... I think you are supposed to stick 'em in
burkas and beat 'em once a week ... I just don't have the heart ...

Regards,
JS

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion" . . .
 

On Sep 17, 2:54*am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/16/2010 11:01 PM, wrote:

...
Mooselums will hook you up with many wives. They say it is legal. *And
I find it very difficult dealing even with one !

Yeah, you and me both ... I think you are supposed to stick 'em in
burkas and beat 'em once a week ... I just don't have the heart ...

Regards,
JS

In that case, we should be getting advice from the ayatollas ! They
must know something,that we don't ... BTW what does US constitution
say about stoning women dressed in burkas ?

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion" . . .
 

wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 2:54 am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/16/2010 11:01 PM, wrote:

...
Mooselums will hook you up with many wives. They say it is legal. And
I find it very difficult dealing even with one !

Yeah, you and me both ... I think you are supposed to stick 'em in
burkas and beat 'em once a week ... I just don't have the heart ...

Regards,
JS

In that case, we should be getting advice from the ayatollas ! They
must know something,that we don't ... BTW what does US constitution
say about stoning women dressed in burkas ?

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion" . . .
 

On Sep 16, 11:01*pm, wrote:
On Sep 16, 11:08*am, John Smith wrote:

On 9/16/2010 6:36 AM, dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

There you good again Attacking Persons-of-Faith
and Singling out the Mormons for your Hate Speech.

The Mormons' plan for world domination doesn't stop at the border.

Well, I could live with that, even get a second wife outta' the deal ....
but I could rest easily if we wipe the radical mooselums out ... them I
could NOT deal with ... LOL

Regards,
JS

- Mooselums will hook you up with many wives.
- They say it is legal. *

(OT) : US Constitution Not Vague About "Freedom of Religion". . .
 

On 9/17/2010 12:56 AM, Brenda Ann wrote:

...
Only one place does it say anything remotely applicable:

VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

We've all seen how much good this amendment does, when bail for many crimes
runs in excess of half a million dollars, fines are being issued far in
excess of any value involved. Also, cruel and unusual punishment is purely
subjective. A SCOTUS decision back in the 90's found that prison
overcrowding (in CA, IIRC) may well be cruel, but is certainly not unusual,
and so a tort claim by inmates was struck down. If enough people wanted
stoning, it would probably pass muster in the current SCOTUS.

Aye. These are dark and ignorant times we live in. Common sense is
absent in our public servants; They refer to themselves as "leaders," I
wouldn't follow them across the street to where they bought me a free beer!

Anyone even remotely mentioned as running in the next election, on any
level, local, state, federal, would not get my vote ... I honestly have
been unable to vote in the last few elections ... there is simply no one
fit which is on the ballot. Amazing, really ...

Regards,
JS