Okay fine, you take the Libertarian view of the 10th. I can respect that. I disagree with it and as has been shown by law etc... so do most Americans. So I guess what you would change, would be to clarify the intent of the 10th Amendment so that more than 10 - 15% of our country views it that way. No intention to be presumptuous, just interpreting your replies.
On Jun 28, 7:44 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> wrote: > Such activity is clearly a violation of the constitution. > > as I noted most of what the federal government spends money on > violates the tenth > > On Jun 28, 10:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok I'll try again. It is your position then, that there are NOT over > > 100 universities (not service acadmies) that receive SOME federal > > funds? Hmmm. You try again. > > Oh and there are no libraries that are federally funded? Museums? > > Hmmmm. You try again. > > > On Jun 28, 7:33 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Federal highways were created for national defense and easily > > > justified > > > > libraries-are they paid for by the federal government? > > > > Most universities are state funded-many were land-grant colleges- > > > entirely consistent with the constitution. Service academies are > > > federally funded-and clearly constitutional as are ROTC programs. > > > > Try again > > > > On Jun 28, 10:29 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 1. Where does the Constitution prohibit these things? > > > > 2. By your logic, highways, libraries and most universities would be > > > > unConstitutional. Correct? > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:25 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > 70% of what the federal government spends money on violates the tenth > > > > > amendment. > > > > > > social security, welfare payments, etc are all unconstitutional > > > > > > On Jun 28, 10:14 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Note 2: The part of this Clause relating to the mode of > > > > > > apportionment > > > > > > of representatives among the several States has been affected by > > > > > > Section 2 of amendment XIV, and as to taxes on incomes without > > > > > > apportionment by amendment XVI. > > > > > > > The constitution was designed to be changed as appropriate. As I > > > > > > said, it is what it is. The problem is that the politicians are > > > > > > still > > > > > > doing many things beyond their authority. > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:00 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So then Richard, you think women should not vote, Indians who > > > > > > > have not > > > > > > > been taxed and 3/5 of black male votes should be the law? The > > > > > > > Constitution is very clear in Article 1 Section 2 on this matter. > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:51 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The constitution is what it is. The words are clear and the > > > > > > > > intent is > > > > > > > > well documented. The problem is not the constitution, but > > > > > > > > rather the > > > > > > > > politicians who attempt to exceed the powers they were granted. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:45 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Obviously, much has changed over a couple hundred years. I > > > > > > > > > see people > > > > > > > > > on both sides of the aisle argue about this. > > > > > > > > > We need gun control. Wire-tapping Americans without a warrant > > > > > > > > > is fine > > > > > > > > > because it protects us. Gays should be able to marry. Due > > > > > > > > > process and > > > > > > > > > cruel & unusual punishment doesn't apply to everyone. Poor > > > > > > > > > Liberals > > > > > > > > > are denied their freedom of speech. Poor Conservatives are > > > > > > > > > denied > > > > > > > > > their freedom of speech. And on it goes. > > > > > > > > > > The first thing I would change is the right to burn the > > > > > > > > > American Flag > > > > > > > > > in public. I just don't see it as a freedom of speech / > > > > > > > > > expression or > > > > > > > > > anything else. I don't see a need to protect this particular > > > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > What would you change?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
