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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen Not so fast. are you breathing? your heart/lungs was not created or jump started by man or evolution or you would be dead by now. God was your only mechanic/fabricator. There is no indication of a god in my life. Sorry to disappoint you.
Now, your turn. prove to me that there 'isn't' a GOD. I don't have to. According to the generally accepted internet rules, you make an assertion, you are required to back it up.
Right. and that 'whole bunch' is a much lower number than the 'whole bunch' who wrote and believe in the Constitution and DOI. [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]You have to prove to me again that these people were religious.[/color]
Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention over the years of the many attacks on the Consistution to amend it laws, you can start at the Bill of Rights. I'm asking for specifics, not generalities. You make assertions, I believe it's okay to ask you to be clear and concise. You are making the assertions.
You know wha they say about opinions right? Oh, how clever.
don't stop there. keep going back until you run out of ancestors, and then tell us what do you have? No proof of anything, the same as you.
So dodging the same questions you asked me is your way of constructive debate? how crass. Now if you wanna get technical about the existence of God, go start the thread in the Religious forum and I will gladly dispell any myth you have grown accustomed to believing.
and it's quite obvious you don't understand it either, but you can bet I'm closer to ground zero than you are. that's for sure.
you asked for "attacks" on the Constitution..let's start with the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ATTACKED! (SEE OBAMA'S CIVILIAN ARMY COMING SOON)
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.ATTACKED! (SEE JOE STACK)
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.NOT ATTACKED(THEY USE THIS ONE TO LIE WITH- SEE BERNIE MADOFF AND RAHM EMMANUEL)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.ATTACKED!(SEE OJ TRIAL - TRIAL TOOK FOREVER AND DAY)
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.ATTACKED!(MANY MANY INNOCENT PRISONERS IN PRISONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY- RAILROADED BY THE COURTS)
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.ATTACKED! (2 CRUMBS OF CRACK- 5YEARS, 1OUNCE OF COCAINE- PROBATION). CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ATTACKED! (SEE TEA PARTY AGAIN)
What about the tea party?
These are opinions, all of them.
Were they taken to court and found to be so? Did they go up against the Supreme Court?
See, these are still your opinions.
Civilian Army, coming soon.
It's all emotional drivel based on your opinions.
I'd like to see some facts to back up your assertions.
I see Tea Parties, which of course is prima facia evidence that they are enjoying all the rights protected by the 1st Amendment.
media is attacking them as we speak. so is Obama and his cronies.
Quote:
I saw WACO, Mr. Koresh if wrongly denied his right to bear arms could have easily proven that in a court of law, but instead, chose to used lethal force to resist a lawfully obtained warrant.
that's what the media toldyou but not th ewhole story.
Quote:
I'm dying to know what provision of the 4th Amendment was violated in Mr. Stack's situation.
Joe Stack TRIED to be reasonable with the IRS and follow procedure. he was not granted those rights, he was bullied, so he snapped. common sense.
media is attacking them as we speak. so is Obama and his cronies.
So the first amendment protects you from criticism? I never knew that free speech was a one way street.
Quote:
'that's what the media toldyou but not th ewhole story.
The media didn't have to tell me anything, I have two very open eyes and could see exactly what happened.
Quote:
Joe Stack TRIED to be reasonable with the IRS and follow procedure.
How do you know how reasonable or unreasonable Mr. Stack was? Did you sit by his side during meetings with the IRS? Regardless, the Constitution doesn't protect you from the civility or the lack of civility on the part of government employees. What it does protect one from is unreasonable search and seizure, apparently the courts, and independent branch of the government, found nothing unreasonable about the governments searches and seizures. And, if you want to compare search and seizure procedures in the 21st Century and those in the 18th, I think you are in for quite an eye opener.
The only thing "questionable" here is your ability to differentiate between God and religion, and your understanding of the beliefs of the founding fathers, which varied amongst them. Some were deists, while others were theists, but I am not aware of any who were atheists. I could be wrong on that as I've not been preoccupied with the subject.
Though they did agree to separation of church and state as a practical matter, insofar as their desire for a non - monarchial form of republican government .. avoiding such domination of the new republic's political affairs, be it theological or royal in nature. They were all too familiar with Rome's undue influence on Europe's politics for hundreds of years and the damage it caused, and it is quite likely that such separation was specifically geared to keep the Pope at the doorstep. But this did not reflect an indifference to God, as God or the Creator is clearly in referenced many times.
This explains your sophomoric understanding .... "I learned this in High School". And no one suggested that the Declaration of Independence was "law". Who did that?
And I overlook nothing ... there clearly are mechanisms for calling Con-Cons, and for amending the constitution, but I'll tell you this ... the way this government is being run now bears no resemblance to the vision of the drafters of that constitution, and if they were around today to see what a mess it is ... every congress since 1913 would have been removed, prosecuted, and some of them hung, as would the last two dozen executives. And I dare say quite a few Supreme Court Justices would have faced similar action.
There is much influence associated with Locke found in the declaration and constitution, much of which is associated with the "social contract" idea. Though Locke's ideas of, and influence on liberalism is a far cry from today's version which has much more in common with Marxism ... and a polar opposite of Locke's belief in private property.
You are very confused. One, I am not some medieval evangelical christian fundamentalist which seems to be what you are driving at with the 6,000 year comment.
No, honest science is proving Darwin to be a major hack, given the continuos discoveries of new archeological findings showing modern man coexisting with earlier man, among other findings that show advancements in the human species could not have occurred in the timeframes found by pure evolution.
The evidence of intelligent design has been accumulating rapidly, much to the dismay of the modern day liberals who cannot bear the thought of a A Creator, primarily because they wouldn't care to be subject to the scrutiny of such a Supreme Being at the end of their days, and no one can blame them for that, the poor Godless souls that they are.
And I might suggest to you that education is a lifelong effort, as such doesn't stop upon graduation of high school. That is barely the beginning.
Do you expect Darwin to have anticipated scientific discoveries that came about over 100 years after his death?
"Intelligence" is anthropological in nature.
God just may be bigger than that.
I trust my dog's senses and instincts regarding an imminent earthquake, over any anthropoid's meteorological prediction.
A couple of responses, using Darwin's information to justify today's creationism would be like using 1857 theories of flight to design a modern aircraft.
B. Humorously, to the rational, the Conservatives in 1787 opposed and fought to prevent the adoption of the new US Constitution (as they opposed and fought to prevent the independence of the 13 colonies).
Today they cling to it like it was the last coca cola in the desert.
Relevant point of order:
If consent was given, neither document is a deterrence to the government.
Remember : job #1 = secure rights, job #2 = govern those who consent.
Once consent is given, job #1 is waived.
Proof?
Militia duty.
All male citizens between 17 and 45 are legally obligated to train, fight and die, on command. That obligation obviously is a violation of one's right to life, liberty, etc, UNLESS consent was given.
So why didn't the Draft Dodgers of the 1960s know how they volunteered?
Relevant point of order:
If consent was given, neither document is a deterrence to the government.
Remember : job #1 = secure rights, job #2 = govern those who consent.
Once consent is given, job #1 is waived.
Proof?
Militia duty.
All male citizens between 17 and 45 are legally obligated to train, fight and die, on command. That obligation obviously is a violation of one's right to life, liberty, etc, UNLESS consent was given.
So why didn't the Draft Dodgers of the 1960s know how they volunteered?
Please add the adjective "informed" to your anchor, consent, to reveal the fraud.
The public education system obliterates the possibility of an informed public.
So the first amendment protects you from criticism? I never knew that free speech was a one way street.
criticism or attacks? I see the media calling them violent etc...those are attack words to jar people to look at them negatively. they are not.
Quote:
The media didn't have to tell me anything, I have two very open eyes and could see exactly what happened.
pffttt...
Quote:
How do you know how reasonable or unreasonable Mr. Stack was? Did you sit by his side during meetings with the IRS? Regardless, the Constitution doesn't protect you from the civility or the lack of civility on the part of government employees. What it does protect one from is unreasonable search and seizure, apparently the courts, and independent branch of the government, found nothing unreasonable about the governments searches and seizures. And, if you want to compare search and seizure procedures in the 21st Century and those in the 18th, I think you are in for quite an eye opener.
I know I wasn't going to go along with the spoonfed media calling Joe Stack a madman and terrorist, that's for sure. At worst he was an upset taxpayer, not some deranged lunatic out for IRS employee blood.
And I'm sure he tried all the avenues before he went off the cliff. I believe that much.
As any legal scholar will tell you, it's not so much the founding documents and laws that determine current dictums but the interpretation of those laws and documents. The Supreme Court is the only authority that we the people have endowed with the power to interpret the constitution. What ever they say is the law of the land. As is obvious, there are many "kitchen table" constitutional experts who interpret the constitution as it affects their interests. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution as it affects the interests of all citizens as a whole.
The interpretation period has long since past .. as common law relies on law of precedent, and the constitutional rulings of previous justices have covered most areas as that might pertain to what the founders intent of the law actually was. They are there now, primarily to apply constitutional principles and law to any new laws which might violate those established constitutional laws.
Those that do as you suggest, are rogue criminals who should be removed. As an example, the 2nd Amendment is clear ... there is no longer room for "interpretation". It's already been decided. Justices not observing this are behaving in a criminal fashion.
What you suggest is that we are in fact ruled by a dictatorship of 9 SC Justices, which is just not the case, and was certainly not the intent of the founding fathers and their well established and painstaking efforts to separate and balance powers.
The Founders would never agree with your statement that Justices appointed (not elected) hold such power solely in their hands and their judgement. They are bound by the constitution, and the historic rulings of all preceding justices and their rulings, and consequently must observe reasonable consistency to those established laws.
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.
