Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you imagine if there had been an internet/social media and 24/7 for profit cable news entertainment, all along.
Take your pick TRs or FDR's psych specialist would probably have diagnosed, attention- deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Bipolar disorder or manic depressive. After getting the medications available today be fortunately not back when they were growing up the result would have been the loss of what helped make them some of our greatest men. Imagine how many future TRs or FDRs are sitting around in a drug induced mental haze.
People like you need to learn that most of those jobs you think went to China were invented out of existence and were replaced because we learned how to use technology (electrical machinery, electronics, computers, software and robotics) to do the work at a fraction of the cost.
I am quite learned. I do not need to learn anything. GE made lightbulbs here. They were able to make them profitably and very cheaply here. The government comes up with new regulations and rather than make these new bulbs here they decide to manufacture them in China and charge 4 times as much for them.
Now maybe they could make these bulbs using 120 employee's as opposed to 210 (or whatever the number is) but the facts are, none of them are here now.
Quote:
Detroit actually makes more cars and trucks today with fewer than 300,000 workers than they did in the late 1950s with more than 3 million workers.
And GE makes zero lightbulbs here when just a very short time ago that was not the case.
Quote:
Also they can make all these cars an trucks in fewer than 1/3 of the factories they used to operate in the industries heyday explaining why the US Midwest is dotted with abandoned auto and truck factories or those plants that made parts., Be advised virtually none of those jobs went to China or even Mexico. GM has several hundred thousand workers in China making cars and trucks sold in China because it cost money to ship cars or trucks across the Pacific.
Which in part is why we pay so much more today for a lightbulb. These jobs are not gone because of technology so don't try and tell me I need to learn anything.
" However each generation has the duty to interpret it,"
I respectfully disagree. By reading the Federalist papers it can be seen HOW the Constitution was written and HOW it should taken. It is VERY clear what the founding Father's meanings were.
I agree. The only valid interpretation is by those who wrote the actual document.
I agree. The only valid interpretation is by those who wrote the actual document.
By such standards all "men" where just that; white of European decent and mostly Protestant or at least any of the various Anglo faiths. Women are chattel to have only rights as deemed necessary but mostly to live their lives as the exclusive property of their husbands, fathers, or some other male. Everyone else outside of that select group (Blacks, gays, the feeble minded, physically handicapped, etc.. have no or little rights, is that it eh?
The Founding Fathers wrote a document for their age and truth to tell many of them as did the "Old World" held huge doubts as to if the great experiment of the fledgling USA would last a generation much less one hundred or more years. Therefore one submits the USC was not designed to remain stagnant and obdurate in the face of obvious changes around the country.
Bush signed McCain/Feingold while acknowledging it was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional but did the "right" condemn Bush for that? What should be the results of a president signing something he knew was unconstitutional?
True, Bush43 did sign the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 into law (Public Law 107-155), however, he did so in order to attach a Signing Statement.
It is not uncommon for a President to sign a bill they believe to be flawed into law. By doing so they have the ability to attach a Signing Statement. The two most common reasons a President will attach a Signing Statement is if they have reason to believe the bill is unconstitutional, or if the law is too ambiguous to be implemented. In the cases when the law is too ambiguous, the Signing Statement provides clarification and directs the Executive Branch in its implementation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Bush argued his entire presidency that he could simply ignore the due process rights of American citizens. How does that not cross the line?
Obama has simply built upon the things Bush started. Where was the honor and integrity when Bush was doing this?
If you are referring to the indefinite detainment, without charge, of certain individuals, Congress gave Bush43 that authority when they enacted Public Law 107-40 into law September 18, 2001. During a State of War, POWs may be detained, without charge, until the war is ended with the repeal of Public Law 107-40. Which is why there is an exception within the Fifth Amendment in the event of war (or public danger).
In 2012 Congress reasserted the President's authority by affirming that Public Law 107-40 was still in effect, and POWs may be detained indefinitely without being charged under the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional about holding POWs at GITMO, indefinitely, and without being charged with a crime, by either Bush43 or Obama. So long as we are in a State of War.
People like you need to learn that most of those jobs you think went to China were invented out of existence and were replaced because we learned how to use technology (electrical machinery, electronics, computers, software and robotics) to do the work at a fraction of the cost. Detroit actually makes more cars and trucks today with fewer than 300,000 workers than they did in the late 1950s with more than 3 million workers. Also they can make all these cars an trucks in fewer than 1/3 of the factories they used to operate in the industries heyday explaining why the US Midwest is dotted with abandoned auto and truck factories or those plants that made parts., Be advised virtually none of those jobs went to China or even Mexico. GM has several hundred thousand workers in China making cars and trucks sold in China because it cost money to ship cars or trucks across the Pacific.
Uh; maybe 5 to 10 years ago you'd be right. Not in 2014. China's working age pop is DROPPING in numbers AND the wages there are going out of sight so it's becoming cheaper to start making stuff here in the US.
By such standards all "men" where just that; white of European decent and mostly Protestant or at least any of the various Anglo faiths. Women are chattel to have only rights as deemed necessary but mostly to live their lives as the exclusive property of their husbands, fathers, or some other male. Everyone else outside of that select group (Blacks, gays, the feeble minded, physically handicapped, etc.. have no or little rights, is that it eh?
Which is why the US Constitution is both genderless and color-blind. Nowhere in that amended document will you find any reference to specific gender or skin color. The document refers to "individuals", "citizens", or "persons".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
The Founding Fathers wrote a document for their age and truth to tell many of them as did the "Old World" held huge doubts as to if the great experiment of the fledgling USA would last a generation much less one hundred or more years. Therefore one submits the USC was not designed to remain stagnant and obdurate in the face of obvious changes around the country.
The document has also been updated 27 times since it was originally ratified, the most recent amendment was in 1992. If you think it should be updated again, have your Congress critter propose an amendment.
True, Bush43 did sign the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 into law (Public Law 107-155), however, he did so in order to attach a Signing Statement.
Which means absolutely nothing and which the right slams Obama for doing. It's still an unconstitutional law.
Quote:
It is not uncommon for a President to sign a bill they believe to be flawed into law. By doing so they have the ability to attach a Signing Statement. The two most common reasons a President will attach a Signing Statement is if they have reason to believe the bill is unconstitutional, or if the law is too ambiguous to be implemented. In the cases when the law is too ambiguous, the Signing Statement provides clarification and directs the Executive Branch in its implementation.
I'm not stupid. There is a difference in signing a law you believe to be flawed and one you believe to be unconstitutional. A president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Quote:
If you are referring to the indefinite detainment, without charge, of certain individuals, Congress gave Bush43 that authority when they enacted Public Law 107-40 into law September 18, 2001. During a State of War, POWs may be detained, without charge, until the war is ended with the repeal of Public Law 107-40. Which is why there is an exception within the Fifth Amendment in the event of war (or public danger).
The Congress can't simply dispense of Constitutional Rights either.
Quote:
In 2012 Congress reasserted the President's authority by affirming that Public Law 107-40 was still in effect, and POWs may be detained indefinitely without being charged under the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional about holding POWs at GITMO, indefinitely, and without being charged with a crime, by either Bush43 or Obama. So long as we are in a State of War.
Almost makes me want to cry when I see an attempt at justifying what the government is doing like this. With this justification anyone could be thrown in prison with the justification "war".
By such standards all "men" where just that; white of European decent and mostly Protestant or at least any of the various Anglo faiths. Women are chattel to have only rights as deemed necessary but mostly to live their lives as the exclusive property of their husbands, fathers, or some other male. Everyone else outside of that select group (Blacks, gays, the feeble minded, physically handicapped, etc.. have no or little rights, is that it eh?
No, that's you being pedantic.
Quote:
The Founding Fathers wrote a document for their age and truth to tell many of them as did the "Old World" held huge doubts as to if the great experiment of the fledgling USA would last a generation much less one hundred or more years. Therefore one submits the USC was not designed to remain stagnant and obdurate in the face of obvious changes around the country.
That's why there's an amendment process. So if you want to change the constitution, use the process that exists to change it. Don't come up with garbage excuses like "reinterpretation" and "living document" for getting away with violating it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
