quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
The biggest and by far most dangerous is the Federal Reserve Act which puts all the power of economic structure into the hands of a privately owned bank instead of Congress where it Constitutionally belongs.

Secondly, the 1st Amendment does not say any where in there about separation of Church and State. It expressly prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That was meant to keep there from being a State religion such as The Church of England.

Thirdly, the 2nd Amendment's right to bare arms is under attack even within the Supreme Court where now there is a 5 to 4 majority which feels it means only the military and does not apply to the common citizen.

Lastly (for me) the 10th Amendment by taking away a state's right to set it's own laws (in a broad general stroke there.) (i.e. sodomy laws which the SC shot down in 2002 citing a person's right to privacy, which I personally have not found where that right is listed.) Texas as well as Montana and other states have been screaming about this one for a while now.

Good question though.. it'll be interesting to say. THANKS!!


OKAY, before I get hit with a barrage of flack. A person's privacy is a GOOD THING, I do believe that the government should stay out of it but for the Supreme Court to shoot it down, they need to cite the source, amendment, act, etc or leave it to the states to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
The biggest and by far most dangerous is the Federal Reserve Act which puts all the power of economic structure into the hands of a privately owned bank instead of Congress where it Constitutionally belongs.

Secondly, the 1st Amendment does not say any where in there about separation of Church and State. It expressly prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That was meant to keep there from being a State religion such as The Church of England.

Thirdly, the 2nd Amendment's right to bare arms is under attack even within the Supreme Court where now there is a 5 to 4 majority which feels it means only the military and does not apply to the common citizen.

Lastly (for me) the 10th Amendment by taking away a state's right to set it's own laws (in a broad general stroke there.) (i.e. sodomy laws which the SC shot down in 2002 citing a person's right to privacy, which I personally have not found where that right is listed.) Texas as well as Montana and other states have been screaming about this one for a while now.

Good question though.. it'll be interesting to say. THANKS!!


OKAY, before I get hit with a barrage of flack. A person's privacy is a GOOD THING, I do believe that the government should stay out of it but for the Supreme Court to shoot it down, they need to cite the source, amendment, act, etc or leave it to the states to decide.

(1) The board of governors of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate. This meets all the requirements to allow the executive branch to operate the system with the approval and oversight of the legislature.

Could you tell me the last time they were audited?


(2) What does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Does it mean only setting up an official church? What about doing it in all but name? The separation of church and state (thank Jefferson) is to prevent a de facto violation of the amendment where no "official" violation would occur.

What it's come to mean is that you can't have anything pertaining to religion on any public property or children being sent home for wearing anything even resembling religion on tee shirts to school. That to me goes against the 'shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


(3) Uhhh... where did you get this? They just lifted the DC ban, what 5-4 majority let that one slip through?

UHHH, Sotomayor makes 5 where as when that ban was lifted it was still 5/4 the other way.


(4) I do not personally understand the ruling in the case to which you are obliquely referring, not being a lawyer myself. I will leave this for someone else.

quote:

Could you tell me the last time they were audited?

quote:

What it's come to mean is that you can't have anything pertaining to religion on any public property or children being sent home for wearing anything even resembling religion on tee shirts to school. That to me goes against the 'shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

quote:

UHHH, Sotomayor makes 5 where as when that ban was lifted it was still 5/4 the other way.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Could you tell me the last time they were audited?

I've not aware of an audit clause in the Constitution---perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

________________________________________________
Congress has tried numerous times to audit the Federal Reserve (a private bank) and been shut down every time. WHY? It's our money and the IRS has the power to audit.. if there's no Constitutional clause then that means I can tell them to FO?
________________________________________________

quote:

What it's come to mean is that you can't have anything pertaining to religion on any public property or children being sent home for wearing anything even resembling religion on tee shirts to school. That to me goes against the 'shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Schools are given pretty wide latitude with dress codes. You saying that an Allah Akbar t-shirt would be okay?
________________________________________________

Content should be held up by common decency. I realize that's subjective and should be left up to the schools. But please tell me what's indecent about a religious shirt? If it's not portraying death and destruction that is.
________________________________________________

quote:

UHHH, Sotomayor makes 5 where as when that ban was lifted it was still 5/4 the other way.

Nope. Souter dissented in the case of Heller, and Sotomayor is expected to vote that way also---zero sum. Here are the written opinions if you'd like them:
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/scotus_dcguns.pdf
________________________________________________

"The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups."

This is where the 10th Amendment also comes in.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States cannot make laws which are unconstitutional (as per the next one infringement upon the 10th)
________________________________________________

Many see the invasion of privacy as 'unreasonable search and seizure'. You've concerned about government intervention in everyday life, but you're all right with gathering evidence of personal sexual practices between consenting adults behind closed doors?
________________________________________________

Does that mean we can smoke pot behind closed doors? or anything else we wanted for that matter.

I'm not sure of the specifics of the case, whether they were caught out somewhere or just got a wild hare up their arse and decided to file.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Lastly (for me) the 10th Amendment by taking away a state's right to set it's own laws (in a broad general stroke there.) (i.e. sodomy laws which the SC shot down in 2002 citing a person's right to privacy, which I personally have not found where that right is listed.)

quote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Originally posted by cosmicfish:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
The biggest and by far most dangerous is the Federal Reserve Act which puts all the power of economic structure into the hands of a privately owned bank instead of Congress where it Constitutionally belongs.

Secondly, the 1st Amendment does not say any where in there about separation of Church and State. It expressly prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That was meant to keep there from being a State religion such as The Church of England.

Thirdly, the 2nd Amendment's right to bare arms is under attack even within the Supreme Court where now there is a 5 to 4 majority which feels it means only the military and does not apply to the common citizen.

Lastly (for me) the 10th Amendment by taking away a state's right to set it's own laws (in a broad general stroke there.) (i.e. sodomy laws which the SC shot down in 2002 citing a person's right to privacy, which I personally have not found where that right is listed.) Texas as well as Montana and other states have been screaming about this one for a while now.

Good question though.. it'll be interesting to say. THANKS!!


OKAY, before I get hit with a barrage of flack. A person's privacy is a GOOD THING, I do believe that the government should stay out of it but for the Supreme Court to shoot it down, they need to cite the source, amendment, act, etc or leave it to the states to decide.

(1) The board of governors of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate. This meets all the requirements to allow the executive branch to operate the system with the approval and oversight of the legislature.

Could you tell me the last time they were audited?

Ask the GAO - they have authority to audit the Fed on behalf of Congress and have done so repeatedly.


(2) What does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Does it mean only setting up an official church? What about doing it in all but name? The separation of church and state (thank Jefferson) is to prevent a de facto violation of the amendment where no "official" violation would occur.

What it's come to mean is that you can't have anything pertaining to religion on any public property or children being sent home for wearing anything even resembling religion on tee shirts to school. That to me goes against the 'shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Does your religion require you to wear "Jesus 4 ever" t-shirts? I knew kids who wore yalmulkas to school, and kids who brought in their bibles, so I think in general freedom of religion is okay. The bigger issue is freedom of speech, which must be respected unless schools can demonstrate a threat to order or safety. If you feel your district has gone too far, sue - the ACLU will even get you a lawyer. Most districts do not have a problem with clothing or religious objects unless they are meant to intimidate or proslytize.


(3) Uhhh... where did you get this? They just lifted the DC ban, what 5-4 majority let that one slip through?

UHHH, Sotomayor makes 5 where as when that ban was lifted it was still 5/4 the other way.

Uhhhhhhh... no. She replaced one of the 4 and is expected to vote the same way, so the balance remains the same. Any changes in rulings will have to come from the actions of one of the conservative jurists or their eventual replacements.

(4) I do not personally understand the ruling in the case to which you are obliquely referring, not being a lawyer myself. I will leave this for someone else.

It may not have even been reported here but it was all over the news in Australia when I was there.

All we heard there was a gay couple challenged the Texas sodomy laws all the way to the Supreme Court where it was found to be unconstitutional citing the 'constitutional' right to privacy, affectively nullifying every state in the country's sodomy laws


*clarification* Texas and Montana amongst other states have been screaming about the 10th amendment infringements, NOT the one case in particular.

Again, not being a legal scholar I will not address the direct ruling. As for other infringements, can you give some other examples?