On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>> The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first
>> place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law.
>> Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's,
>> so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this
>> indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But
>> that's about it.
>>
>
> You are correct of course but it is received wisdom that it is true. And
> IMNSHO England was well rid of them. I only wish that they had taken the
> Scottish Presbyterians with them.
>
>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>> tolerance.
>
> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.

Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by them.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 5:21 PM, Kenneth wrote:

> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or de-criminalizing
> the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a seemingly-overarching Federal
> law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we have. If no
> one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain valid. I'm
> not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down simply
> because it differs from the 'higher' law.

The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1]. 
And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the 
states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government, 
but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.

Regards,
John
[1] Or to do a whole host of other things that add up to around 80% of 
our federal budget.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 9:45 AM, Warp wrote:
> Article 6 of the United States constitution says the following:
>
> "[...] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
> to any office or public trust under the United States."
>
> Article 6 of the North Carolina constitution states the following:
>
> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
>
> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
>
> The contradiction could not be clearer.
>
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?

In the Constitution, the term "United States" refers to the federal 
government of the United States, and not the government of any single 
state underneath it.  When referring to the state governments, the 
Constitution employs the term "State" or "the several States."

As an example, the Fourteenth Amendment makes use of specific language 
to indicate that it applies to the state governments as well as the 
federal government:  "But neither the United States nor any State shall 
assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or 
rebellion against the United States..."

The phrase "any office or public trust under the United States" means 
offices of the *federal* government only, and thus the prohibition on 
religious tests applied only to federal offices at the time these were 
written.  It is not a prohibition on the state governments.

But as I mentioned before, the provision in the NC state constitution is 
a dead letter.  I'm not aware of any court decision upholding it, 
certainly not in our lifetimes.  Wikipedia discusses this at some length 
here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution#Infeasible_Provisions

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> On 12/12/2012 5:21 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>
>> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>> de-criminalizing
>> the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>> seemingly-overarching Federal
>> law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we
>> have. If no
>> one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain
>> valid. I'm
>> not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down
>> simply
>> because it differs from the 'higher' law.
>
> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1]. And
> unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states
> those powers which are not reserved to the federal government, but the
> courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
>

I'm sure they would argue the commerce clause applies.

> Regards,
> John
> [1] Or to do a whole host of other things that add up to around 80% of
> our federal budget.

Like having a standing army, for one.

(yeah, yeah, I know, it's only funded for one year, and gets renewed 
every year, but no one is really fooled)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 27-12-2012 10:37, Warp wrote:
> This is so typical of creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like.
> When a claim they make is refuted so completely that even they cannot
> deny the explanation anylonger, they still cannot admit being wrong.
> They will simply try to evade by moving to something else.
>

Took a while to find it again, but It reminds me of the following, I 
noted down:

Some years ago, NASA released the first deep-space photographs of the 
beautiful cloud-swirled blue-green agate we call Earth. A reporter 
showed one of them to the late Samuel Shenton, then president of 
International Flat Earth Research Society. Shenton studied it for a 



From: Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

Reprinted from Creation/Evolution IX (1982)
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/6flood.htm

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2013 12:25 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:

>>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>>> tolerance.
>>
>> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
>> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
>
> Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by
> them.

I disagree. They are "freedom fighters" they will only become oppressors 
if they gain power and start oppressing.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1]. 
> And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the 
> states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government, 
> but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.

I saw somewhere a graph showing homicide rates (ie. homicides per capita)
in the United States during the last about 100 years.

There was a big slope up in the 20's, about coinciding with the
ratification of the 18th amendment, and a slope down somewhere after
the 21st amendment was ratified.

Decades later there was another big slope up (not as steep, but reaching
about the same height), coinciding with the start of the so-called "war
on drugs" in the US. The curve is still pretty high since those times.

Now, I understand that correlation does not necessarily imply causation,
but I would like to see really good reasons why that's not the case here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2013 6:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/01/2013 12:25 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>>>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>>>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>>>> tolerance.
>>>
>>> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
>>> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
>>
>> Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by
>> them.
>
> I disagree. They are "freedom fighters" they will only become oppressors
> if they gain power and start oppressing.

They already have power (the leadership over the rest) and the 
oppression is well underway.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2013 10:05 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1].
>> And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the
>> states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government,
>> but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
>
> I saw somewhere a graph showing homicide rates (ie. homicides per capita)
> in the United States during the last about 100 years.
>
> There was a big slope up in the 20's, about coinciding with the
> ratification of the 18th amendment, and a slope down somewhere after
> the 21st amendment was ratified.
>
> Decades later there was another big slope up (not as steep, but reaching
> about the same height), coinciding with the start of the so-called "war
> on drugs" in the US. The curve is still pretty high since those times.
>
> Now, I understand that correlation does not necessarily imply causation,
> but I would like to see really good reasons why that's not the case here.

It's well-known here in the States that a great deal of the murders that 
go on are gang-related.  Much of it is one gangster killing another in 
turf wars.

In our suburbs and rural areas, the homicide rates are much like 
Canada's or Europe's.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2013 1:54 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 1/25/2013 6:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 25/01/2013 12:25 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>>>>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>>>>> tolerance.
>>>>
>>>> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a
>>>> certain
>>>> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
>>>
>>> Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by
>>> them.
>>
>> I disagree. They are "freedom fighters" they will only become oppressors
>> if they gain power and start oppressing.
>
> They already have power (the leadership over the rest) and the
> oppression is well underway.
>

I won't bandy words.
Both statements support Clipka's


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message