what does that have to do with the constitutional power of the federal government
On Jun 28, 11:04 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > So then you believe women should NOT have ever been given the vote? > Oh, okay Turtle. > > On Jun 28, 7:57 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > anyone who claims that the constitution is "alive" wants to truly kill > > it > > > On Jun 28, 10:46 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You've just written the point of my post. The Constitution is a living > > > document which has evolved over the last couple centuries. It's > > > changed. I'm not asking what you would change that would empower the > > > "Imperial Federal Government". It sounds like you might change > > > something to make even more clear, the intention to prevent one. Would > > > that be such a bad thing to make Constitutional? > > > > On Jun 28, 7:34 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I believe the Constition is a "living document" in that we have the > > > > right and the authority to change and improve it. But, we know > > > > exactly what it is today and we know what transpired regarding every > > > > change ever made. My problem remains that the imperial federal > > > > government is doing many things not in their power and often clearly > > > > precluded. Our Founding Fathers gave us a wonderful document, > > > > designed to be a work in process. But, one thing that has not changed > > > > is that their fear of the excessive power in the hands of a > > > > centralized government was well founded. > > > > > I hope I am making you think. We need more citizens who take > > > > individual freedoms seriously and value personal responsibility above > > > > the "social slavery system" encouraged by excessive government > > > > dependence. > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:26 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ok Richard so then "It is what it is" until it is something different. > > > > > Then it is what it is then! Until it isn't. But hey, it's very clear! > > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:14 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
