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.
So if we have a majority vote to reinstate slavery and it passes we either abide by it otherwise it would be anarchy?
Extreme analogy but think about it. 51 percent should not be making decisions for the other 49.
No, your extreme analogy would be a violation of the Constitution.
If you are one of the people effected by Maplewood's ban, start a petition, stand outside supermarkets, get signatures, find someone on the town council who voted against it. Get them to rescind the regulation.
I just think the more these laws spread, technology will catch up. It certainly has for the automobile industry, today's cars are cleaner, more powerful, get better mileage, and more reliable than cars from 40yrs ago. In a large part thanks to legislation.
since when is people giving opposing opinions equal to getting riled up? you want to limit negative opinions to only the people directly harmed by actions then you will never help the rights of minorities.
what about the people in maplewood and business that oppose this law? the concept of majority rule is tyranny. 51% of the town has no business telling the other 49% what they can or cant do.
I'm not trying to limit anything. All I did was ask a question: If you don't live in Maplewood, why are you getting upset?
And yeah, I would say people are getting riled. They are talking about "discrimination" and their rights being infringed on.
And only 4 pages in, now we are talking about Trump, tyranny, and slavery.
IN A THREAD ABOUT LEAF BLOWERS.
I mean Jesus H. Christ. Even DannyHobkins is siding with those dirty hippy Maplewood snowflake libs on this one.
I think you're just jealous that jackalope stole your troll thunder for a hot minute, and this is you making a comeback.
I live in the South Orange half of the so-called 'SOMa', and while I do think the leaf blower ban is a bit silly, I do think they are pretty annoying. One day I was home sick and thought that something weird was wrong with something n my house, as there was some strange vibrating that I couldn't quite track down. I eventually realized it was caused by the guy blowing my neighbor's house across the street. So I do have some sympathy for my neighbors.
I also have experience with lawn services, and in my experience they don't really care about noise ordinances (we just got rid of a guy because he kept doing our yard before the time blowers were allowed), so I don't in general have a ton of sympathy for them. I do think as an 'industry' they could try a little harder!
The problem is that a small town like Maplewood banning gas blowers really isn't going to cause enough of a ripple to make the manufacturers try hard enough (or for lawn services to collectively look for alternatives), you'd really need a whole state like California to enact restrictions that would cause enough manufactures to really try and come up with an alternative. If Telsa made a 'cool' alternative electric blower people in towns like South Orange, Maplewood and Montclair would eat that up and your yard service could probably charge more money.
(None of this fixes the particulates issue either, which is nothing to sneeze at...)
No, your extreme analogy would be a violation of the Constitution.
If you are one of the people effected by Maplewood's ban, start a petition, stand outside supermarkets, get signatures, find someone on the town council who voted against it. Get them to rescind the regulation.
I just think the more these laws spread, technology will catch up. It certainly has for the automobile industry, today's cars are cleaner, more powerful, get better mileage, and more reliable than cars from 40yrs ago. In a large part thanks to legislation.
Slavery is not even addressed in the constitution which was written obviously well before the end of slavery. It is an amendment the bans slavery. Amendments do get repealed. Thankfully not by a majority vote.
Actually, the institution of slavery is addressed in The US Constitution.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 established the concept that slaves constituted 3/5 of a person when calculating the number of people in a state in order to establish how many Congressmen would represent that state. This was the so-called 3/5 Compromise that was necessary in order to get the Constitution ratified.
Additionally, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1 states: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by The Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for each person.
I am frequently astounded by the lack of knowledge that many people display about our history and about the document that serves as the foundation of our government.
Actually, the institution of slavery is addressed in The US Constitution.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 established the concept that slaves constituted 3/5 of a person when calculating the number of people in a state in order to establish how many Congressmen would represent that state. This was the so-called 3/5 Compromise that was necessary in order to get the Constitution ratified.
Additionally, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1 states: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by The Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for each person.
I am frequently astounded by the lack of knowledge that many people display about our history and about the document that serves as the foundation of our government.
Ok so I should have said the legality of slavery is not addressed in our constitution.
Ok so I should have said the legality of slavery is not addressed in our constitution.
The legality of slavery is addressed in The US Constitution, albeit indirectly.
If slavery was not then considered to be legal, how would "slave states" have been allowed to include 3/5 of the total number of their slaves in their population totals when calculating the number of Congressmen that the state would have? If slavery was not then recognized as being legal, then there could not have been a provision for including those persons in the census figures for Congressional representation.
Additionally, if slavery was not then considered to be legal, then the US Constitution would not have permitted taxation on the importation of slaves.
The legality of slavery is addressed in The US Constitution, albeit indirectly.
If slavery was not then considered to be legal, how would "slave states" have been allowed to include 3/5 of the total number of their slaves in their population totals when calculating the number of Congressmen that the state would have? If slavery was not then recognized as being legal, then there could not have been a provision for including those persons in the census figures for Congressional representation.
Additionally, if slavery was not then considered to be legal, then the US Constitution would not have permitted taxation on the importation of slaves.
I agree no noise before 11am, feel free to use them the rest of the day.
KEEPING on TOPIC
Why 11 am?I am fine with anytime after 8 am and done by 4 pm Monday through Sat.Nothing on Sunday.
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.
