The question was "Are you a USA Citizen?" I never doubted that you are a South "American Citizen".
Printable View
The question was "Are you a USA Citizen?" I never doubted that you are a South "American Citizen".
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433114]
Big changes have come about in America the last 50 years. Some good, alot bad. Now, there has never been a lack of unhappy people in the world, especially when they being marginalized, or feel like they are being marginalized. And usually, minorities are in this category. So, I don't quite get this "slave" issue. Your chances of being a slave is as good as my chances of being a plantation owner. Zero.[/QUOTE]
You're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree with you. You are however right about the chances of me becoming a slave, but you're wrong about the reason why, it's because I don't intent to give up my ability to resist. I realize in todays world most people won't understand this but it's my grand-kids that I'm worried about, not me.
BTW my friend I really wish you and Caricoso would learn how to end a quote [/QUOTE] it really makes your post hard to read.
[url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode[/url]
[QUOTE=Punter127;433127]You're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree with you. You are however right about the chances of me becoming a slave, but you're wrong about the reason why, it's because I don't intent to give up my ability to resist. I realize in todays world most people won't understand this but it's my grand-kids that I'm worried about, not me.
BTW my friend I really wish you and Caricoso would learn how to end a quote [/QUOTE] it really makes your post hard to read.
[url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode[/url][/QUOTE]OK!, About the quote thing. Yes! I did something wrong (erased?) and that's probably the reason it didn't show correctly. You refer to "You" and "Caricoso". Who's "You?"
Now, about being an American. (Yes! I am a U.S. Citizen). Did I meet your requirements?
Is require on this forum to be a U.S. citizen to participate? How about U.S. residents that have given enormous contributions to the country? Can they participate?
Simply. What's the type of person who wont be welcome to this forum besides the one who is unpolite and unrespectful?
Thank You!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433124]Caricoso, in a previous post you stated you are an "American". If this is so why are you using an translation program to post in English?[/QUOTE]Please read what I sent to Punter!
By the way I didn't get an answer regarding your comments of the translation program!
Thank you!
The people who are pro or anti gun control, just like the pro or anti abortion folks, have their minds made up and all of the arguments, no matter how well thought out, are not going to change them. Why waste our time? Give it a rest, and go on to some other aspect of the Obama regime.
Tres3.
Regarding the translator comment:
From the wording of your post, sentence structure, and very odd word selection & placement it appears to me you may be using a translation program to post in English as English may not be your primary language. As I use translation programs on occasion I am familiar with their function and errors when translating from English to another language.
Regarding who can post on the site:
Anyone is welcome, regardless of nationality, to post on AP on any topic they choose.
I am permitted to post here. According to Esten, I must be from Mars. Doppelganger of Mars, not quite the same ring as John Carter of Mars. Although the princess did look a bit Argentine!
There is a caveat, you can post till you piss Jackson off.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433131]Regarding the translator comment:
From the wording of your post, sentence structure, and very odd word selection & placement it appears to me you may be using a translation program to post in English as English may not be your primary language. As I use translation programs on occasion I am familiar with their function and errors when translating from English to another language.
Regarding who can post on the site:
Anyone is welcome, regardless of nationality, to post on AP on any topic they choose.
I am permitted to post here. According to Esten, I must be from Mars. Doppelganger of Mars, not quite the same ring as John Carter of Mars. Although the princess did look a bit Argentine!
There is a caveat, you can post till you piss Jackson off.[/QUOTE]I don't use any translation programs. Yes! My primary language is not English. I speak and I write with an accent! I love when the girls shake hands with me and the first thing they say is... Hi my name is...Where are you from? Cute!
I know that you would prefer if I post all the time that I agree with you 100%. I'll make an effort!
Anyway, I like you! No hard feelings here!
I'm not looking for folks to agree with me, it would be really boring if that occured. I even like Esten & DR even if they are lost souls and blockheads to quote Nancy.
I'll be back in town in July, if your in town first drink is on me.
Monger on dude.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
[b]Abraham Lincoln.[/b]
I don't remember reading anything about "by the NRA"?
It is too bad that the amount of time that is given to arguing over particulars is not spent addressing the only legitimite function of government, the protection of individual rights.
Not only does our govenment fail to do this but is the biggest violator of those rights. Individual rights, not civil rights, not human rights, etc.
Don be.
[QUOTE=DonB;433136]It is too bad that the amount of time that is given to arguing over particulars is not spent addressing the only legitimite function of government, the protection of individual rights.
Not only does our govenment fail to do this but is the biggest violator of those rights. Individual rights, not civil rights, not human rights, etc.
Don be.[/QUOTE]Spot on...That is the Libertarian way! (Not Republican and Democrat).
You ideologues crack me up! The legitimate function of government is whatever the people decide it should be.
If you're upset about the government building roads and bridges, ensuring food and drug safety, prosecuting fraud, and administering programs like social security and medicare, write your Congressman and tell them to stop.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;433114]So, I don't quite get this "slave" issue. Your chances of being a slave is as good as my chances of being a plantation owner. Zero.[/QUOTE]
Some people are slaves of their own paranoia.
[QUOTE=Esten;433141]You ideologues crack me up! The legitimate function of government is whatever the people decide it should be.
If you're upset about the government building roads and bridges, ensuring food and drug safety, prosecuting fraud, and administering programs like social security and medicare, write your Congressman and tell them to stop.[/QUOTE]Hitler was voted into power, the people wanted him so what he did is OK with you.
I crack you up, you disgust me.
Don B
[QUOTE=Esten;433141]You ideologues crack me up! The legitimate function of government is whatever the people decide it should [/QUOTE]Wow. So the role of government potentially changes every four years? That's a little lame, don't ya think? Food for thought Esten. Monger on all. Toymann.
[QUOTE=Caricoso;433128] OK!, About the quote thing. Yes! I did something wrong (erased?) and that's probably the reason it didn't show correctly. You refer to "You" and "Caricoso". Who's "You?" [/Quote] If you go back and read my post again you will find that I was directing my remarks to BlackShirt so he would be the “you” in my statement. In the following sentence I'm referring to you.
Caricoso your poor comprehension of English is not my fault!
All quotes must end with the BB code [/quote] at the end or they will show up like the unending obscure gibberish you've been posting.
Did you ever think about previewing and correcting your post before you submit it? Why would anyone take your post seriously if you don't care enough to even attempt to put it in a proper form?
[QUOTE=Caricoso;433128]Now, about being an American. (Yes! I am a U.S. Citizen). Did I meet your requirements?
Is require on this forum to be a U.S. citizen to participate?
Simply. What's the type of person who wont be welcome to this forum besides the one who is unpolite and unrespectful?
Thank You![/QUOTE] Jackson decides who is and who isn't welcome on this forum, not me. Again your poor comprehension of English is not my fault! Read what I said again,[i][b][u]“ if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.”[/u][/b][/i]
That statement has nothing to do with the policies of this forum.
[QUOTE=Caricoso;433128]How about U.S. residents that have given enormous contributions to the country? Can they participate?[/quote] Sorry but No, U.S. Residents who are not citizens, do not have a say in U.S. Politics.
[QUOTE=Tres3;433130]The people who are pro or anti gun control, just like the pro or anti abortion folks, have their minds made up and all of the arguments, no matter how well thought out, are not going to change them. Why waste our time? Give it a rest, and go on to some other aspect of the Obama regime.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]This may be true with some people but when you look at the gun control polls and the way the numbers swing around it's just not the same as abortion. Many opinions are swayed by current events, biased reporting, half truths, and flat out lies, all of which need to be exposed.
I'm not pointing any fingers here but generally speaking when people on the left want to give a subject a rest it's a pretty good indication that the subject very much needs to be talked about.
Having said that I do agree with Don B that we should be talking about the purpose of government and its legitimate function of protection of individual rights.
[QUOTE=Punter127;433145]If you go back and read my post again you will find that I was directing my remarks to BlackShirt so he would be the “you” in my statement. In the following sentence I'm referring to you.
Caricoso your poor comprehension of English is not my fault!
All quotes must end with the BB code [/quote] at the end or they will show up like the unending obscure gibberish you've been posting.
Did you ever think about previewing and correcting your post before you submit it? Why would anyone take your post seriously if you don't care enough to even attempt to put it in a proper form?
Jackson decides who is and who isn't welcome on this forum, not me. Again your poor comprehension of English is not my fault! Read what I said again,[i][b][u]“ if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.”[/u][/b][/i]
That statement has nothing to do with the policies of this forum.
Sorry but No, U.S. Residents who are not citizens, do not have a say in U.S. Politics.[/QUOTE]
Do you think is correct for you to ask people what nationality they are to see if you can find a fault in that person (You want to look cool!), because you couldn’t on the message that was directed to you?
My English wasn’t clear for you?
By the way, do you reside in Argentina?
Thank you for your answer!
[QUOTE=Caricoso;433149][QUOTE=Punter127;433145]
If you go back and read my post again you will find that I was directing my remarks to BlackShirt so he would be the “you” in my statement. In the following sentence I'm referring to you.
Caricoso your poor comprehension of English is not my fault!
All quotes must end with the BB code [/quote]
at the end or they will show up like the unending obscure gibberish you've been posting.
Did you ever think about previewing and correcting your post before you submit it? Why would anyone take your post seriously if you don't care enough to even attempt to put it in a proper form?
Jackson decides who is and who isn't welcome on this forum, not me. Again your poor comprehension of English is not my fault! Read what I said again,“ if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.”
That statement has nothing to do with the policies of this forum.
Sorry but No, U.S. Residents who are not citizens, do not have a say in U.S. Politics.[noparse][/QUOTE][/noparse]
Do you think is correct for you to ask people what nationality they are to see if you can find a fault in that person (You want to look cool!), because you couldn’t on the message that was directed to you?
My English wasn’t clear for you?
By the way, do you reside in Argentina?
Thank you for your answer![/QUOTE] Sir, I did [b][u]not[/b][/u] ask what your nationality was, I ask you if you are [size=+1][b][red]U[/red][color=gray]S[/color][color=blue]A[/color][/b] [/size]Citizen. That's not the same thing.
Your understanding of English is poor, and your posting skill are abominable. Just look at your post, the reader has to struggle to separate the quote from message, it reminds me of alphabet soup. If one of my post popped up on my screen and looked like that I would delete it with breakneck speed. One can only surmise that your lackadaisical attitude towards the quality of your work is representative of the Argentine people in general.
To ask someone if they are a [size=+1][b][red]U[/red][color=gray]S[/color][color=blue]A[/color][/b] [/size]Citizen when discussing American politics is relevant.
To ask someone if they reside in Argentina when discussing American politics is irrelevant, perhaps it would be appropriate in the “Living in Argentina” thread.
This is my last off topic reply to you,
Chau
[QUOTE=Punter127;433152][/noparse]
Do you think is correct for you to ask people what nationality they are to see if you can find a fault in that person (You want to look cool!), because you couldn’t on the message that was directed to you?
My English wasn’t clear for you?
By the way, do you reside in Argentina?
Thank you for your answer![/QUOTE] Sir, I did [b][u]not[/b][/u] ask what your nationality was, I ask you if you are [size=+1][b][red]U[/red][color=gray]S[/color][color=blue]A[/color][/b] [/size]Citizen. That's not the same thing.
Your understanding of English is poor, and your posting skill are abominable. Just look at your post, the reader has to struggle to separate the quote from message, it reminds me of alphabet soup. If one of my post popped up on my screen and looked like that I would delete it with breakneck speed. One can only surmise that your lackadaisical attitude towards the quality of your work is representative of the Argentine people in general.
To ask someone if they are a [size=+1][b][red]U[/red][color=gray]S[/color][color=blue]A[/color][/b] [/size]Citizen when discussing American politics is relevant.
To ask someone if they reside in Argentina when discussing American politics is irrelevant, perhaps it would be appropriate in the “Living in Argentina” thread.
This is my last off topic reply to you,
Chau[/QUOTE]
Don't worry! This is "my last reply" to you!
You didn't like the answer when I said that "I was an American citizen", and because you only like those who agree with you "10,000% your best defense is to start insult me about my English, and the nonsense of asking if I was a US citizen.
Have a great day!
A few important interpretive opinions followed by a enumeration of rights and obligations:
1. The Federal Government has very few duties, enumerated below, and NO others allowed under the Constitution and Common Law at the time it was drafted. The other powers go to the States and to the People.
2. Not only do citizens have a right to bear arms; it is their constitutional duty to do so to protect their community and the US, unvaryingly even in the extraordinarily rare event that their own government attempts to take on additional powers not given to it by the constitution or acts against its own people. Clearly, the framers wanted the citizenry to have arms able to do this work in the event that the English, French, etc. attempted to overtake US government. This is one of the strongest arguments illustrating why citizens should not only be allowed to by semiautomatic rifles, but contrarily may be obliged to do so when their constitutional way of life or country is being threatened (i.e. Korea, Iran, terrorists, etc.) It is well known that Japan did not attempt a full scale invasion on US soil, because their generals believed they would meet insurmountable resistance by the citizenry who were well-armed and supplied. Furthermore, note there is a right to form a well-disciplined militia not associated with the government at all in peace time, but an expectation that in times of need, that militia would fall under the command and control of the Constitutionally organized federal government; assuming it is itself following the Constitution. In fact, citizens have a right to militia training. In other words, you should be able not to only own a semi-automatic rifle, but also rely upon your government to help you learn how to use it in the defense of your country.
3. Citizens also have the right to and the obligation to assist with police acts in their community subordinate to the guidance of an appropriate designated leadership structure defined by the local, state, or federal police authority. In other words, when needed a Citizen should be able and willing to be deputized and armed to come to the aid of an appropriate constitutionally consistent policing authority to protect and defend the tenants of the US Constitution and the Personhood of its citizenry against enemies both foreign and domestic. The next time you hear about a citizen watching a violent crime occur without assisting intervention or without contributing to the degree possible to the prosecution of the perpetrator, you know they are not only a coward, but they have not exercised their constitutional duty. The same applies when they try to get out of jury duty.
US citizens are not spectators to their government and its whims, but rather, by design; they are the players and the referees. The Judiciary (i.e. Supreme Court) is not there to legislate or enforce laws, but rather to determine if the currently used "Book of rules" is dependable and undeviating from the Constitution and the Common/Natural Laws applicable at the time it was written. Even more important, is the fact that the US Citizen is obliged to resist laws that are not steadfast with these tenants.
4. If our Citizens do not start paying as much attention to their duties as they do their rights, then their rights will be stripped. If a child does not meet their parent's reasonable rules, then the child's rights get nipped. The more more our government leaders feel they are parents to look out and train the citizenry (which they are not by the way), the more they will believe they can create their social utopia through disciplining the citizenry. The problem is the framers did not give them the right to temporarily or permenantly infringe upon the rights of the citizenry because they didn't view them as children, but rather as equals and partners in this great new republic.
Pete
===================================
[u][b]Summary of Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties[/b][/u]
Discussions of rights are sometimes confused concerning what are and are not rights of the people or powers of government or the duties of each. This is an attempt to summarize most of the more important rights, powers, and duties recognized or established in the U.S. Constitution, in Common Law as it existed at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, or as implied therein. Not included are certain "internal" or administrative rights and powers that pertain to the various elements of government within each level with respect to each other.
Personhood:[1]
"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends.
Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, trusts, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.
Under Common Law, persons include only individual human beings and combinations of them acting in concert, but it provides a basis for inclusion of entities that are sufficiently like human beings in their behavior to be indistinguishable for legal purposes, such as aliens, androids, or genetically enhanced animals, which have interests, an ability to reason, and an ability to communicate. This would exclude, however, establishment of other things as persons, such as inanimate objects, which have no ability to represent themselves under due process. Inclusion of such inanimate objects as parties to civil due process, in effect making them "persons", has found its way into the U.S. legal system as in rem proceedings, unconstitutionally, through recent seizure/forfeiture statutes.
Although not a well-developed area, there is also a basis for excluding entities which, although they are born to human beings, lack attributes which would enable them to be functionally human, such as some minimal level of cognitive capacity, but such beings must be considered natural persons as the default unless proven otherwise through due process.
[u][b]Citizenship:[/b][/u]
Citizenship is the attribute of persons who, as members of the polity, have certain privileges and duties in addition to those they have as persons. Citizens include those born on U.S. or State territory or naturalized according to law.
[u][b]Natural Rights:[/b][/u]
The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.
[u][b]Personal Security (Life):[/b][/u]
(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.
[u][b]Personal Liberty:[/b][/u]
(3) To move freely.
(4) To assemble peaceably.
(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]
(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.
(7) To communicate with the world.
(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.
(9) To practice one's religion.
(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]
[u][b]Private Property:[/b][/u]
(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:
(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.
(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.
(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.
(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.
[u][b]Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:[/b][/u]
(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]
(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.
(3) To petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.
(4) To petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources available thereto.
(5) To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon, subject to resources available thereto.
(6) Not to have one's natural rights individually disabled except through due process of law, which includes:
[b](a) In criminal prosecutions:[/b]
(1) Not to be charged for a major crime but by indictment by a Grand Jury, except while serving in the military, or while serving in the Militia during time of war or public danger.
(2) Not to be charged more than once for the same offense.
(3) Not to be compelled to testify against oneself.
(4) Not to have excessive bail required.
(5) To be tried by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place.
(6) To have a jury of at least six for a misdemeanor, and at least twelve for a felony.[1]
(7) To a speedy trial.
(8) To a public trial.
(9) To have the assistance of counsel of one's choice.
(10) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
(11) To be confronted with the witnesses against one.
(12) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.
(13) To have each charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]
(14) To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict.[1]
(15) To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law.[1]
(16) Upon conviction, to have each disablement separately and explicitly proven as justified and necessary based on the facts and verdict.[1]
(17) To have a sentence which explicitly states all disablements, and is final in that once rendered no further disablements may be imposed for the same offense.[1]
(18) Not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself.
[b](b) In civil cases:[/b]
(1) To trial by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place[1] where the issue in question is either a natural right[1] or property worth more than $20.
(2) In taking of one's property for public use, to be given just compensation therefor.
(3) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.[1]
[b](c) In all cases:[/b]
(1) To have process only upon legal persons able to defend themselves, either natural persons or corporate persons that are represented by a natural person as agent, and who are present, competent, and duly notified, except, in cases of disappearance or abandonment, after public notice and a reasonable period of time.[1]
(2) Not to be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process.[1]
[u][b]Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract:[/b][/u]
(1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.
(2) To vote in elections that are conducted fairly and honestly, by secret ballot.
(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]
(4) To receive militia training.[7]
See also List of constitutional rights.
[u][b]Disabilities of minority: [1][/b][/u]
Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.
[u][b]Constitutional duties of persons under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7][/b][/u]
(1) To obey laws that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent.
(2) To comply with the terms of legal contracts to which one is a party.
(3) To tell the truth under oath.
[u][b]Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7][/b][/u]
(1) To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.[6]
(2) To help enforce laws and practices that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not.
(3) To serve on juries, and to render verdicts according to the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of statute and common law, and the facts of the case.
[u][b]Constitutional duties of able-bodied citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7][/b][/u]
(1) To defend the U.S. or State, individually and through service in the Militia.
(2) To keep and bear arms.[18]
(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials when present.[17]
[u][b]Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:[/b][/u]
(1) Exclusive powers
(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]
(2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.
(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.
(4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]
(5) To regulate immigration.[7]
(6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
(7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.
(8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.
(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]
(10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.
(11) To provide and regulate postal services.
(12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.
(13) To constitute lower national courts.
(14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]
(15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.
(16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.
(17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.
(18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.
(19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]
(20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.
(21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]
(22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.
(23) To admit new states into the Union.
(24) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.
[u][b](2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers[/b][/u]
(1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.
(2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]
(3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.
(4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.
(5) To conduct a census every ten years.
[u][b](3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers[/b][/u]
(1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]
(2) To borrow money.
[u][b]Restrictions of the powers of the national Government:[/b][/u]
(1) No exercise of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution.
(2) No payment from the Treasury except under appropriations made by law.
(3) Excises and duties must be uniform throughout the United States.
(4) Shall pass no tax or duty on articles exported from any state.[5]
(5) No appointment of a senator or representative to any civil office which was created while he was a member of Congress or for which the amount of compensation was increased during that period.
(6) No preferences to the ports of one state over another in regulation or tax collection.
(7) No titles of nobility shall be granted by the U.S. government, or permitted to be granted to government officials by foreign states.
(8) May not protect a State against domestic violence without the request of its legislature, unless it cannot be convened, in which case, without the consent of its executive.
(9) U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign country.
[u][b]Powers delegated to State Governments:[/b][/u]
(1) Exclusive powers
(1) To appoint persons to fill vacancies in the U.S. Congress from that state and to hold special elections to replace them. State executive may make temporary appointments if state legislature in recess and until they reconvene, when they shall appoint a temporary replacement.
(2) To appoint the officers of its Militia.[11]
(3) To conduct the training of its Militia.[12]
(2) Non-exclusive powers[4]
(1) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress.[10]
[u][b]Restrictions of the powers of the State Governments:[/b][/u]
(1) State constitutions and laws may not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws pursuant to it.[7]
(2) May not exercise powers not delegated to the State government by the State Constitution.[7]
(3) May not make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
(4) May not pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts.
(5) May not grant a title of nobility.
(6) May not collect imposts or duties on imports or exports without consent of Congress, except fees necessary to cover the costs of inspections and paid to the U.S. Treasury.[8]
(7) May not lay a duty on tonnage.
(8) May not keep troops or ships of war in time of peace or make war without the consent of Congress, unless actually invaded and in imminent danger that does not admit of delay.
(9) May not make a compact or agreement with another state of the U.S. or with a foreign state without the consent of Congress.
[u][b]Duties of the State Governments:[/b][/u]
(1) Must provide a republican form[12] of government to their citizens.[7]
(2) Must conduct honest and fair elections, by secret ballot.[7]
(3) Must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and recognize the privileges and immunities granted thereby.
(4) Must extradict a person charged with a crime in another state to that state.
(5) Must organize and train their militias.[7]
[u][b]Restrictions of the powers of all Governments:[/b][/u]
(1) Shall not disable any natural or constitutional right without due process of law, and then only to the extent necessary to avoid infringing the rights of others.
(2) Shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
(3) Shall not suspend habeas corpus, except in case of rebellion of invasion and the public safety may require it.
(4) Shall not issue a search warrant but on probably cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
(5) Shall not arrest members of Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, while their house is in session.
(6) Shall not question a member of Congress on anything he says during a speech or debate in his house.
(7) Shall not pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.
(8) Shall allow no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted.
(9) Shall not deny or abridge the right to vote to any person on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, for failure to pay any tax, or on account of age if older than 18.
[u][b]Some arguably needed national powers:[/b][/u]
(1) To regulate the manufacture, distribution, operation, and disposition of aircraft and spacecraft, the regulation of their crews, and the definition and punishment of crimes committed on U.S. registered aircraft or spacecraft or on aircraft or spacecraft operating in U.S. airspace.
(2) To regulate cabled or wireless communications beyond a distance of 1 kilometer.
(3) To regulate the production, distribution, and use of nuclear energy, and electric energy transmitted more than 1 kilometer.
(4) To limit tort liability on commerce and commercial articles subject to U.S. regulation of their manufacture.
(5) To pre-emptively pass and enforce laws needed to conserve wildlife and natural resources, to protect the climate and natural environment, to prevent an excess of population, and to regulate public health and workplace safety.
(6) To provide for the punishment of abuses of power by any official, agent, or employee of, or contractor for, any institution of government, and specifically any violations of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto.
(7) To provide for the punishment of abuses of the natural rights of persons by other persons, in the event that those abuses, if the occurred on state ground, are not prosecuted by a State government.
(8) To define "due process" to include the elements given above which are not now explicit in the U.S. Constitution.
(9) To define the arms to which persons have a right to keep and bear as including "all those weapons which may be carried by one person and which might be useful or necessary to defend oneself or the community, except weapons of mass destruction such as bombs, heavy missiles or artillery, or biological, chemical, or nuclear agents which may cause lasting injury or death."
(10) To make explicit that only natural persons or corporate persons composed of natural persons may be the subject of due process in any civil or criminal proceeding.
[u][b]NOTES:[/b][/u]
[1] This is established in Common Law at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, but is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution.
[2] Originally, "commerce" meant only transfers of goods or services for a valuable consideration, so that "interstate" commerce would not include interstate migration, carrying across a state border of one's own possessions that one intends to keep, the sending across a state border of a gift or inheritance, nor include articles which had not yet crossed a state border, or articles which had "come to rest" with the completion of the transfer. It would not include manufacturing, local sales, or things that are "part of an aggregate" of interstate commerce, or things that might "affect" interstate commerce. Note also that the power to regulate does not include the power to criminally prosecute violations of regulations, but only to seize property through civil process.
[3] These are the only provisions that allow federal criminal laws jurisdiction outside federal ground.
[4] These powers, if not exercised by the State, revert to the people.
[5] This provision would seem to forbid taxes on interstate commerce if export to another state of the U.S. is included, leaving only intrastate commerce or commerce on federal ground subject to excise taxes or duties, although interstate commerce can otherwise be regulated.
[6] This means obeying constitutional laws and practices, and resisting unconstitutional ones.
[7] This is not clearly stated, but implied.
[8] The power to tax is not the power to regulate or license, and vice versa. That is why the powers to tax and to regulate are separately specified. With one exception, which is never used (in Art. 1 Sec. 10), no allowance is made for the charging of fees to cover the costs of regulation, even though this has become a common practice, in violation of the Constitution.
[9] This use of the word "Legislation" is a term of art which grants general powers within its jurisdiction, including powers of criminal and civil law that a State might exercise within its jurisdiction, but unlike a State in that a State would be restricted by a state constitution granting it only certain powers. This is a major gap in the Constitution. Although it applies only to federal ground, it also does not make clear what are the limitations on such legislative power, other than the natural and constitutional rights of persons, and so has been interpreted to allow anything that does not violate those rights. There is a need for a federal sub-constitution, similar to a typical state constitution, that applies to federal ground.
[10] The wording suggests that the States have the power, but allows the Congress to pre-empt it.
[11] But this implies that if the State fails to appoint such officers, local militias are left to elect their own, which was the established Common Law practice at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. But "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". This means Congress can direct, but not forbid it, and implies that, in the absence of any training conducted by the State, local militias are left to organize and train themselves, which was the established Common Law practice established at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted.
[12] The term used is "form" of government, but the Framers seem to have meant substance as well, and that is reasonably implied.
[13] The original term was "well-regulated", but this is what was meant. Militias were originally local and independent of official authority, and it was intended that although they be subject to official authority when called into service by such authority, that they also be able to convene and operate independently when not.
[14] "Vehicle" was not explicitly included, but implied as an "effect".
[15] This is needed to allow persons not only to have rights but the means to exercise them, and also to acquire those means if they do not already have them, without which the right would be unduly burdened. However, beyond this right, the community has the general power to restrict contracts for reasons of public policy and not just to avoid conflicts with the rights of others, so that there is not a general "right" of contract, but a "default privilege" of doing so, subject to law, for contracts that do not involve securing the means to exercise their natural rights.
[16] This is worded as "to execute the Laws of the Union", thus allowing States to also call forth their Militias to execute their own laws.
[17] The exercise of general police powers is both a right of citizens, and a duty of able-bodied ones. All citizens are policemen, although ordinary citizens may be outranked by professional police officers when such officers are present in a law enforcement situation.
[18] Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens.
[u][b]FURTHER COMMENT:[/b][/u]
Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.
Note also that the fundamental unit of the social contract is the local community, ward, or village. These may aggregate into a larger "state" or "federal union", but the basis is agreement among those who are in direct contact with one another.
It is sometimes thought that "the Constitution" consists only of the written document. This is not so. The title "The Constitution of the United States" was added after the document was adopted, but "constitution" meant the "basic legal order", and the Constitution consists of both the written document and the common law at the time the document was adopted, which is here referred to as the Common Law in caps. Now, the written document does supersede the Common Law where they might be in conflict, but it does not replace it, and courts must refer to the Common Law for guidance where the written document is silent or ambiguous.
In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution. For example, that is how "federal ground" is extended to include coastal waters out to a certain distance from shore, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad, and how the rights of the people are amplified by the Charter of the United Nations and by various bilateral and multilateral Treaties that extend civil and commercial rights to U.S. citizens abroad.
The following diagrams can help clarify the relationship among the various elements of law in the U.S. legal system. Each element is superior to the one below it, although state constitutions are derived from their people, not from the U.S. Constitution. Although not shown, each element also includes the body of writings and recorded speeches of the legislators, diplomats, and judges who wrote the constitutions, treaties, laws, and court decisions, which clarify their intent, and which must be accepted as the basis of interpreting the words as originally meant and understood when there is confusion or dispute over their meaning.
Home » Legal Reform | Constitutional Defense
Original URL: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ll.htm
Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
Original date: 2000/12/24 — Last updated 2013/3/12
Just to go back to what Tres3 posted. Speaking for myself, I would not say my primary reason for posting is to convince other people. My primary reason is because I enjoy debate as intellectual stimulation. By fleshing out an issue with all sides and arguments presented, I often learn more about the issue, or I at least increase my appreciation of how others view the issue. By letting all the information "stand" as shown, others can also draw their own conclusions as to which side has more weight. There is also the enjoyment factor of exposing weak or contradictory arguments, and there's plenty of that to enjoy here.
[QUOTE=Toymann;433144]Wow. So the role of government potentially changes every four years? That's a little lame, don't ya think? Food for thought Esten. Monger on all. Toymann.[/QUOTE]The role can change at any time. In our democracy the people have a mechanism to effect that change; an election may be an important part of that mechanism but not essential where there is significant support for something. In the case of a constitutional amendment, you need overwhelming support. But even without an amendment, within what is constitutionally lawful, there is plenty of room for the government to get more or less involved in something (though some may argue that is not changing the actual role of government).
The point is that the government is there to serve the people. "Of, By, and For". Those who claim the only function is to protect individual rights, conveniently forget the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Even Peter's post below shows there is a lot more to it.
[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433156]Personal Security (Life):
(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.[/QUOTE]Constitutional support for gun control. I like it! Now would the paranoid gun lovers who equate background checks with gun-grabbing, please sit down, take a deep breath, and exhale.
Esten.
To be clear, the USA is in fact a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy (as you state incorrectly), please get your facts straight and do your homework on why the framers of the Constitution by design avoided democracy and created a Constitutional Republic instead...
[QUOTE=Esten;433160]Just to go back to what Tres3 posted. Speaking for myself, I would not say my primary reason for posting is to convince other people. My primary reason is because I enjoy debate as intellectual stimulation. By fleshing out an issue with all sides and arguments presented, I often learn more about the issue, or I at least increase my appreciation of how others view the issue. By letting all the information "stand" as shown, others can also draw their own conclusions as to which side has more weight. There is also the enjoyment factor of exposing weak or contradictory arguments, and there's plenty of that to enjoy here.
The role can change at any time. In our democracy the people have a mechanism to effect that change; an election may be an important part of that mechanism but not essential where there is significant support for something. In the case of a constitutional amendment, you need overwhelming support. But even without an amendment, within what is constitutionally lawful, there is plenty of room for the government to get more or less involved in something (though some may argue that is not changing the actual role of government).
The point is that the government is there to serve the people. "Of, By, and For". Those who claim the only function is to protect individual rights, conveniently forget the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Even Peter's post below shows there is a lot more to it.
Constitutional support for gun control. I like it! Now would the paranoid gun lovers who equate background checks with gun-grabbing, please sit down, take a deep breath, and exhale.[/QUOTE]
Scum, cowards. To think that these people exist among the human race. So far, no radical islamic have claim credit. To me, it's pointing towards domestic terrorism.
"Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a "Night Watchman" position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $ 918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.
NOW slowly, let it sink in.
Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?
Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so! Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people who read this can remember!
Ready??
It was very simple... And at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL!
Hey, pretty efficient, huh?
AND NOW IT'S 2013.- 36 YEARS LATER.- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
36 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes.- good old Federal bureaucracy.
NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?
Hello! Anybody Home?
Tres3.
Congress has legalized bribery & corruption, so that it is out there in the open. Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires. So you think they care about you & me. And here we are fighting & arguing about taxes & guns. We are suckers. In the same vein that we walk around advertising for Gucci, Rolex, Apple, etc. All in the name of free expression & free speech.
Yes SS, we have a Constitutional Republic, but within it is a representative democracy. They are not mutually exclusive; they overlap. That democracy is how the people exercise their power at the ballot. The power of elected representatives is however tempered, including a high threshold for constitutional amendments. I noted this in my last post, but perhaps you did not read past the word "democracy". I'm afraid your response is largely about style over substance.
What we saw today in the Senate is quite remarkable:
- The vast majority of Americans support universal background checks.
- The majority of Senators voted for universal background checks.
- But the amendment was defeated because it fell short of the 60-vote threshold (which is not required by the Constitution).
I'm not sure I disagree with the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. But when 45% of Senators (not counting Reid's strategic No vote) oppose a measure that 90% of Americans support, something isn't right. I'm looking forward to seeing the analysis of which Senators voted contrary to the will of their constituents, and their connections to the gun lobby such as the NRA.
In the meantime, congrats to the gun lobby for temporarily fending off the gun grabbers, even though you're in the minority.
[quote]Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Reid -- who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. [snip]
[highlight]Perhaps helping explain Democrats' problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January [snip][/highlight]
Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/background-check-plan-in-trouble-as-dems-call-votes-on-gun-bill/#ixzz2QmQJGVnN[/url] [/quote]
Make no mistake this is just the first trip to the well for the gun grabbers.
[quote]a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states' permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure. The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws. [snip][/quote]
Why would the [strike]gun[/strike] power grabbers oppose a common sense amendment like the “reciprocal concealed carry amendment” after all these people have already had background checks and found to be trustworthy?
[QUOTE=Esten;433205]Yes SS, we have a Constitutional Republic, but within it is a representative democracy. They are not mutually exclusive; they overlap. That democracy is how the people exercise their power at the ballot. The power of elected representatives is however tempered, including a high threshold for constitutional amendments. I noted this in my last post, but perhaps you did not read past the word "democracy". I'm afraid your response is largely about style over substance.
What we saw today in the Senate is quite remarkable:
- The vast majority of Americans support universal background checks.
- The majority of Senators voted for universal background checks.
- But the amendment was defeated because it fell short of the 60-vote threshold (which is not required by the Constitution).
I'm not sure I disagree with the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. But when 45% of Senators (not counting Reid's strategic No vote) oppose a measure that 90% of Americans support, something isn't right. I'm looking forward to seeing the analysis of which Senators voted contrary to the will of their constituents, and their connections to the gun lobby such as the NRA.
In the meantime, congrats to the gun lobby for temporarily fending off the gun grabbers, even though you're in the minority.[/QUOTE]"The vast majority of Americans support universal background checks."
Universal, you mean like for gun purchases, voting & immigration?
I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If so please let me know. If not, I'm going to start calling you Red Shirt. To avoid any confusion, since you live in Bangkok, "Red Shirt" means a supporter of Karl Marx, not Thaksin Shinawatra.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204] Congress has legalized bribery & corruption, so that it is out there in the open.[/QUOTE]So why do you favor a big federal government? Why not shrink the beast, and give power to individuals, and politicians at the local and state level who are more accountable to the people they govern? That's the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt Congressmen.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204] Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires. [/QUOTE]That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204] In the same vein that we walk around advertising for Gucci, Rolex, Apple, etc. All in the name of free expression & free speech. [/QUOTE]I agree Gucci and Rolex are a waste of money. These companies have many competitors, like Hugo Boss, Cartier, Motorola, and Dell Computer. So who is going to decide which of these are going to stay in business? Who is going to pass the regulations to clamp down on free expression and free speech to implement what you want? I guess it would have to be those corrupt Congressmen. Or maybe a dictator could be in charge of this command and control (socialist?) economy. Someone like Hugo Chavez, may he rest in peace.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433204]Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;433223]That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.[/QUOTE]1. I agree with smaller government = best. But aside from politics and whether the demographic facts quoted by Black Shirt is right or wrong, assuming they are for a minute, his quote was "median", not average.
2. You are confusing median with average. The median is simply the exact middle number within a chronologically ordered set of numbers (or if no exact middle number exists, the average of the two straddling middle numbers).
Not getting into whether the income data is correct or not, but if "almost half are millionaires", you could indeed have the median be $750 k simply by having the exact middle congressman making $750 k.
E.g. In a set of $1, $50, $500 k, $750 k, $1 MM, $1 MM, 10 MM.
The median is simply $750 k, the middle number of the set.
The average is $1.9 MM, skewed by the top and low outliers.
And the mode is $1 MM, which is simply which number occurs most frequently in the set.
3. To get a real sense of how out of touch congress is with typical income families, you'd likely have to exclude from the set freshman and perhaps all first term congressman. I would suspect that the average would already be quite high, but if you exclude first term congressman that may rotate in / out of office more than the truly long term incumbents, the average and median would probably be staggeringly higher.
Fucking Chechens. Creating havoc in Russia wasn't good enough for 'em.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;433223]I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If so please let me know. If not, I'm going to start calling you Red Shirt. To avoid any confusion, since you live in Bangkok, "Red Shirt" means a supporter of Karl Marx, not Thaksin Shinawatra.
So why do you favor a big federal government? Why not shrink the beast, and give power to individuals, and politicians at the local and state level who are more accountable to the people they govern? That's the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt Congressmen.
That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.
I agree Gucci and Rolex are a waste of money. These companies have many competitors, like Hugo Boss, Cartier, Motorola, and Dell Computer. So who is going to decide which of these are going to stay in business? Who is going to pass the regulations to clamp down on free expression and free speech to implement what you want? I guess it would have to be those corrupt Congressmen. Or maybe a dictator could be in charge of this command and control (socialist?) economy. Someone like Hugo Chavez, may he rest in peace.[/QUOTE]Actually, I don't believe I have a communist bone in my body, some socialist cartilage tissue perhaps. Marx was before my time. I like being a team player, and believe in "for the greater good". I detest the guy who says, you all have to quit playing because I am going home, and I'm taking my ball with me.
Sorry for the confusion. In my haste, I quoted numbers a few years back. January 17,2013 saw a report by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets. Org). All 535 members of Congress are worth an average of $966.001. 48% or 257 members of Congress are millionaires. I have failed math since freshman in high school. Thanks to Mxpey for his contribution, but it's Latin to me.
Smaller government, less bureaucracy, I like that concept but that was when horses was still a major mode of transportation. Today, the issues are a little bigger and more complicated, bigger government is a natural product. And we get the government that we deserve as a society, unfortunately, our society is in the Jerry Springer mode right now.
Brand names, luxury items. No problem, if you have the money. But Americans are told that they are failures, ugly or retards or they will catch a disease if they do not possess certain products. And they have to be replace every year or else, they will die. Funny, I just remember that we were actually talking about slavery the other day.
Ah yes, Bangkok where you can survive like a poor king for $25,000, you and your shadow. And you can look good, no matter what color of your shirt!
Mpexy, A millionaire is a person with a net worth of $1 million or more. There are very few people who consistently make around $750,000 per year who aren't millionaires. I have no problem with Black Shirt's statement / statistic that a little less than half of Congressmen are millionaires. That sounds reasonable. I highly doubt their median income is $750,000 though. It would be much lower.
These days a net worth of about a million dollars is required, IMHO, to have a comfortable retirement.* Remember that would include the equity in your house. A person who's worth $1 million in the USA isn't wealthy.
I don't think Congress is populated by a bunch of very wealthy people (although some are), or that the wealthy are inherently immoral. I may have misinterpreted Black Shirt's post, but I thought that was where he was going. I do agree that some Congressmen are corrupt, and most cater to special interests.
*That's in the USA. I agree with Black Shirt that $25,000 a year is enough in Bangkok, and "you handsome man" regardless of what brands of clothes you wear.
[B]The real reasons the Senate trounced the Obama agenda.[/B]
The link Below is a excellent article, "The Gun Rights Consensus".
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433181]Scum, cowards. To think that these people exist among the human race. [snip][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doggboy;433226]Fucking Chechens. Creating havoc in Russia wasn't good enough for 'em.[/QUOTE]
I Agree!
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433181] So far, no radical islamic have claim credit. To me, it's pointing towards domestic terrorism.[snip][/QUOTE]
Sorry, (Mr Red Shirt) Media, No White Tea Partiers Were Involved.
[quote]Media Bias: There's palpable dismay at outlets such as MSNBC and Salon that the Boston Marathon bombers were radicalized young men from Chechnya and not angry white males from the vast right-wing conspiracy.
[url] http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041913-652673-msnbc-salon-blamed-bombing-on-tea-party.htm#ixzz2QyApCoWY [/url][/quote]
Btw, I hate to burst you bubble, but I don't really think you look all that “good” in red. :D Just mho.
[QUOTE=Punter127;433247]I Agree!
Sorry, (Mr Red Shirt) Media, No White Tea Partiers Were Involved.
Btw, I hate to burst you bubble, but I don't really think you look all that “good” in red. :D Just mho.[/QUOTE]Remember Atlanta in 1996, I was scheduled to fly there the next day, and so I did. So beware of presumptions & jumping the gun.
You have not seen me in red underwear at midnight on Beach Road.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433251]Remember Atlanta in 1996, I was scheduled to fly there the next day, and so I did. So beware of presumptions & jumping the gun.
[/QUOTE]Yes, Atlanta was handled very poorly. BTW judging from some of the early reports the FBI may have ran a background check on one of the Boston Marathon bombers and declared him to not be a threat. They did the same thing with Carlos Bledsoe in Little Rock, before he shot up an Army recruiting station in 2009. So much for the effectiveness of background checks.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433251]
You have not seen me in red underwear at midnight on Beach Road.[/QUOTE]Proof positive that [B]God does exist[/B], and I'm very blessed!