Why should religion and education be seperate?
siha...@gmail.com
prayer was mandatory and God could be talked about, we didnt see the
problems we have today! Yes everyone is entitled to their beliefs but
for those atheists or all you so called freedom of choice believers
did you not take away my rights when you told me I couldnt mention God
or say prayer before school...how about when you say I cant have a
report on Jesus or Buddah or whoever I choose to worship because I am
infringing on their rights! My rights are taken away daily by people
like this. If you dont want to pray be quiet if you cant stand to hear
Gods name, shut your ears, whistle whatever you choose to do Religion
and school should be made to be required!!!!!!
buckeye
>:|I believe that religion and education should go hand in hand, when
>:|prayer was mandatory and God could be talked about, we didnt see the
>:|problems we have today!
Most of the problems that exist today existed in the past. Poverty, crime,
violence, hate, fear, discrimination, etc.
>:|Yes everyone is entitled to their beliefs but
>:|for those atheists or all you so called freedom of choice believers
>:|did you not take away my rights when you told me I couldnt mention God
>:|or say prayer before school..
You can pray all you want just about anywhere at any time.
Employers whom hired you to do a certain job have the right to expect you
to do that job, thus the can rightfully place some restrictions on what you
can and cannot do during the time period you are "on their clock" so to
speak.
Pub;ic school has that same right as well since they have a particular
function to perform. Therefore they can rightfully place some restrictions
on what students can do when "on their clock" so to speak.
Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
such a setting.
Prayer is totally and completely legal even on school grounds when u are on
your "clock" on those grounds.
>:|how about when you say I cant have a
>:|report on Jesus or Buddah or whoever I choose to worship because I am
>:|infringing on their rights! My rights are taken away daily by people
>:|like this.
Your "rights" are not bveing takn away by anyone.
>:| If you dont want to pray be quiet if you cant stand to hear
>:|Gods name, shut your ears, whistle whatever you choose to do Religion
>:|and school should be made to be required!!!!!!
The folliowing addresses your intolerant mindset:
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and Why the Department of
Justice Is Wrong To Support It
One would have thought that conservatives would have sided with the
parent's right to raise one's child according to one's own religious
beliefs, but as the Framers understood only too well, one should never
underestimate the powerful temptation to extend one's power when one
can.
If anyone thinks that this case is not about the power of the
entrenched religious versus the powerlessness of nonbelievers in this
society, today's oral argument proves them wrong. Chief Justice
Rehnquist floated several proposals to defend "under God." First, he
stated that the two words were not really a "prayer," a distinction without
a difference.
. . . The result is a tyranny of principles (including the
emotivist's principle of deference to "objective expertise"), as well as a
concomitant response in favor of a tyranny of individuals (anarchy). These
twin aspects of emotivism are evident, for example, in the rise of efforts,
under the rubrics of free speech and free exercise, to place formal
Christian prayers sanctioned by school authority back into the public
schools. The free exercise right is asserted here in terms of anarchical,
radical individual rights: "my" individual rights, "my" absolute right to
free exercise, without regard to the disestablishment principle or to
competing interests of the community. Interestingly, where they are able,
religious adherents (also or instead) argue the authoritarian side of
emotivism: They reject any court's interpretations of the first amendment
which recognize civil liberties contrary to their beliefs because these
interpretations are based upon nothing more than the justices' personal
opinions and subjective feelings.13 Their majority status and legislative
influence are the hard facts which objectively, and thus conclusively,
should decide the issue.
Source of Information: Regulating Religion, The Courts and the Free
Exercise Clause. Catharine Cookson, Oxford University Press, (2001) p
(Preface) IX.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Peter Franks
> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
> such a setting.
Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
establishment of social programs.
Therefore, in looking at the issue in question, discussing religion
in/out of the classroom on constitutional grounds is artificial and
contrived.
Cary Kittrell
>
> buckeye wrote:
> > Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
> > constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
> > such a setting.
>
> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
> establishment of social programs.
Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
-- cary
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> buckeye wrote:
>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>>> such a setting.
>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>> establishment of social programs.
>
> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>
> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
in eduction"?
Enkidu
news:63opk.5030$dB6....@newsfe01.iad:
The same place we have constitutionally chosen to involve govenment in
flood control, fire supression, space flight, medical care for the
elderly, the interstate freeway system, air traffic control, the "War on
Drugs", etc.
Anything not prohibitted by the Constitution may be addressed by the
Congress and signed into law by the President.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
He [George Washington Cable] has taught me to abhor and detest the
Sabbath day and hunt up new and troublesome ways to dishonor it.
-Mark Twain
Mike Painter
Can you point out where the constitution says only those things that are
mentioned in the constitution are to be a part of government?
If we followed your beliefs what "rights" would the government protect and
under what conditions?
Why would the founders of such a system have created law making and law
enforcing segments of the government?
Cary Kittrell
Our will, as expressed via our elected representatives. You find this
process somehow unConstitutional?
-- cary
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there
>>>>> are constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to
>>>>> religion in such a setting.
>>>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government,
>>>> when legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not
>>>> the establishment of social programs.
>>> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>>> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>>> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>>>
>>> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>> Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve
>> it in eduction"?
>
> Can you point out where the constitution says only those things that are
> mentioned in the constitution are to be a part of government?
Sure can.
Amendment X
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.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in
> news:63opk.5030$dB6....@newsfe01.iad:
>
>> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there
>>>>> are constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to
>>>>> religion in such a setting.
>>>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government,
>>>> when legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not
>>>> the establishment of social programs.
>>> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>>> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>>> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>>>
>>> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>> Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve
>> it in eduction"?
>
> The same place we have constitutionally chosen to involve govenment in
> flood control, fire supression, space flight, medical care for the
> elderly, the interstate freeway system, air traffic control, the "War on
> Drugs", etc.
Ok, /that/ imaginary place.
None of what you mentioned is specifically authorized by the Constitution.
> Anything not prohibitted by the Constitution may be addressed by the
> Congress and signed into law by the President.
Sorry, you must be referring to some totalitarian regime.
WRT the US, take a look at Amendment X for further details.
Cary Kittrell
Either that, or the system under which our Constitution grants
we the poeple the right to delegate our government to
carry out such activities, or any other activities we
may so require of it, within the limits of said Constitution.
Or are you aware of some clause which forbids the people to
exercise this right?
-- cary
Mike Painter
That is at best a minority opinion and SCOTUS has only declaed a very few
laws unconstitional based on this bit of redudndany and since "the word
'expressly' ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified,
and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper
Clause."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Mike Painter
Then read what those who understand it say about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Bob LeChevalier
>buckeye wrote:
>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>> such a setting.
>
>Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government.
"We the people" in every state of the union have said otherwise, by
putting education into our respective state constitutions. Your
loonytarian assumptions have nothing to do with reality.
>Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
Peter Franks
Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source.
If you have a point to make, use a definitive resource.
Peter Franks
The supreme Court can't point out where "we have chosen to involve
[government] in eduction" either.
> and since "the word
> 'expressly' ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified,
> and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper
> Clause."
There is no delegation of authority or power in 1.8.18.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>>>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>>>>> such a setting.
>>>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>>>> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>>>> establishment of social programs.
>>> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>>> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>>> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>>>
>>> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>> Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
>> in eduction"?
>
> In every state constitution.
We are discussing government in the context of the US (Federal)
Constitution.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> buckeye wrote:
>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>>> such a setting.
>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government.
>
> "We the people" in every state of the union have said otherwise, by
> putting education into our respective state constitutions. Your
> loonytarian assumptions have nothing to do with reality.
Name calling serves no purpose other than to establish your inability to
rationally discuss a topic.
>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>
> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
in a legitimate government.
The enlightened knows that mob rule serves no one.
Mike Painter
If you can't do more than say it is not definitive, then there is no need to
make a point.
I say it is far more definitive than you are.
Provide some court decisions that have overturned what the government does.
Show that the majority of scholars disagree with the Wikipedia article and
agree with you.
Show *any* government in the history of mankind that exists or did exist for
just the protection of rights.
"protecting rights" is a meaning less term without explaining exactly what
rights under what conditions.
Bob LeChevalier
There is no evidence of this restriction of context in your earlier
statements, and it makes no sense in terms of what you said.
Are you saying that state governments and their functions are NOT an
aspect of "legitimate government"?
Public education is a state government function, not a Federal
function. Your argument was that it isn't legitimately a government
function, but it is, at the state level.
At the Federal level "education" isn't a government function, but an
organizational principle for several minor government functions. The
Feds don't directly control education, but are only involved
indirectly. Each indirect program may be constitutionally justified.
under such things as interstate commerce, civil rights, training the
militia; grouping them all under a "Department of Education" is an
organizational matter, under the Presidential power to name inferior
officers.
Bob LeChevalier
>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>
>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>
>Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
>in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
>The enlightened knows that mob rule serves no one.
There are no "enlightened". You are as much a part of the mob as
everyone else.
Peter Franks
The original assertion was: "Anything not prohibitted by the
Constitution may be addressed by the Congress and signed into law by the
President."
I proved that statement incorrect by citing Amendment X.
You counter with some weak argument using Wikipedia as a source. I've
challenged that source, and now you want me to substantiate my challenge?
Substantiate your own sources, it isn't my responsibility.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>>>>>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>>>>>>> such a setting.
>>>>>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>>>>>> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>>>>>> establishment of social programs.
>>>>> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>>>>> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>>>>> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>>>> Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
>>>> in eduction"?
>>> In every state constitution.
>> We are discussing government in the context of the US (Federal)
>> Constitution.
>
> There is no evidence of this restriction of context in your earlier
> statements, and it makes no sense in terms of what you said.
Posted to newsgroup alt.politics.usa.constitution. The implication is
clear.
> At the Federal level "education" isn't a government function, but an
> organizational principle for several minor government functions. The
> Feds don't directly control education, but are only involved
> indirectly. Each indirect program may be constitutionally justified.
> under such things as interstate commerce, civil rights, training the
> militia
What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
>> in a legitimate government.
>
> In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
Spending Clause.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mike Painter
>>>>>
>>>>> None of what you mentioned is specifically authorized by the
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>> Anything not prohibitted by the Constitution may be addressed by
>>>>>> the Congress and signed into law by the President.
>>>>> Sorry, you must be referring to some totalitarian regime.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRT the US, take a look at Amendment X for further details.
>>>> Then read what those who understand it say about it.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>>> Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source.
>>>
>>> If you have a point to make, use a definitive resource.
>>
>> If you can't do more than say it is not definitive, then there is no
>> need to make a point.
>> I say it is far more definitive than you are.
>
> The original assertion was: "Anything not prohibitted by the
> Constitution may be addressed by the Congress and signed into law by
> the President."
>
> I proved that statement incorrect by citing Amendment X.
>
> You counter with some weak argument using Wikipedia as a source. I've
> challenged that source, and now you want me to substantiate my
> challenge?
> Substantiate your own sources, it isn't my responsibility.
I countered with the prevailing opinion, regardless of the source.
The Necessary and Proper Clause was not amended by the tenth.
My "poor" source mentions
United States v. Sprague (1931) as well as . An often-repeated quote, from
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been
surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that
it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and
state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the
amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new
national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the
states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."
You continue to question the source rather than counter the argument.
If the tenth was as you want it to be then the law of the land would be
different and there would be no argument.
Perhaps SCOTUS is also a poor source since it does not agree with you.
Mike Painter
What rights?
Who's rights?
Who decides?
Does a person have a right to an education?
If so does a government have a duty to provide guidelines for such an
education?
I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>
> What rights?
The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
> Who's rights?
Humanity's.
> Who decides?
Nature.
> Does a person have a right to an education?
No.
> If so does a government have a duty to provide guidelines for such an
> education?
No.
> I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
> responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
Freedom comes by fighting for what is right; armies are an indispensable
aspect of preserving that freedom.
Peter Franks
In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent power; it
was powerless on its own.
Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted far
beyond its original intent.
So, you may say that NCLB is based on the spending clause, but I say
that the foundation is rotten.
Peter Franks
The Necessary and Proper clause is not a source of power.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
>
> > Spending Clause.
>
> In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent power; it
> was powerless on its own.
So said Madison. But Hamilton disagreed.
> Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted far
> beyond its original intent.
The disagreement amongst the founders, along with the ambiguous
language, disprove any clear original intent.
Josh Rosenbluth
JohnN
> Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >buckeye wrote:
> >> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
> >> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
> >> such a setting.
>
> >Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government.
>
The most important part of the USA Constitution. Our Founders were
radicals and true revolutionaries in the 18th century.
JohnN
Bob LeChevalier
>Mike Painter wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>> Enkidu wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:63opk.5030$dB6....@newsfe01.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and
>>>>>>>>>> there are constitutional issues that that come into play with
>>>>>>>>>> regards to religion in such a setting.
>>>>>>>>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government.
>>>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for the protection
>>>>>>>>> of rights, not the establishment of social programs.
>The original assertion was: "Anything not prohibitted by the
>Constitution may be addressed by the Congress and signed into law by the
>President."
The original assertion and your response were the above-quoted passage
Bob LeChevalier
It was posted to alt.education. There is no such implication.
Furthermore, all the state constitutions in the USA would be on-topic
in alt.politics.usa.constitution. After all, it isn't
alt.politics.usa.federal-constitution.
>> At the Federal level "education" isn't a government function, but an
>> organizational principle for several minor government functions. The
>> Feds don't directly control education, but are only involved
>> indirectly. Each indirect program may be constitutionally justified.
>> under such things as interstate commerce, civil rights, training the
>> militia
>
>What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
It is a revision of the ESEA law, which I believe is justified as a
civil rights measure to assure equal treatment under the law to poor
school children.
http://www.aect.org/about/history/esea.htm
<Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)
<
<Background of the Legislation
<
<By the middle of the 1960s, many American school districts that had
< been racially segregated were now being desegregated. Equality in
< voting and other civil rights was being attained by African-Americans
< a hundred years after Emancipation. It was obvious, though, that a
< wide chasm separated the races economically. President Lyndon Johnson
< had been elected in a landslide in 1964 and he felt the political
< conditions were right to push for Congressional action on an agenda
< of social reform, called The Great Society. A central program in that
< agenda was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.
<
<Purpose of the Legislation
<
<The overall purpose of ESEA was to improve educational opportunities
< for poor children. This was not meant as a general package of aid to
< all schools; the allocation formulas directed assistance to the local
< education agencies (LEAs) with the greatest proportions of poor
< children. The funds were purposely distributed through state
< education agencies (SEAs) to avoid the perception that the federal
< government was intervening in the rights and obligations of states to
< provide public education and also to use the funds as leverage to upgrade
< the capabilities of SEAs themselves.
http://www.ohea.org/GD/Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=170&Content=8038
addresses how ESEA has evolved since then
<Finally, from 1990 to the present, the education debate has been
< dominated by the desire of policymakers to see evidence that federal
< investments in education programs yield tangible, measurable results
< in terms of student achievement and success. The two main examples of
< this approach occurred in 1994 and in 2001, with the passage of
< President Clinton’s Goals 2000 and the Improving America’s Schools
< Act (IASA) and President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act
< (NCLB).
So NCLB is merely an effectiveness measurement (with teeth) for the
ESEA expenditures.
Bob LeChevalier
>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
>>
>> Spending Clause.
>
>In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent power; it
>was powerless on its own.
Prove it.
Bob LeChevalier
Rights don't reign anywhere, except as recognized by the constitution
and/or backed by the courts.
Bob LeChevalier
>Peter Franks wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>>
>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>
>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>
>What rights?
>Who's rights?
>Who decides?
>
> Does a person have a right to an education?
Kids with disabilities are stated under IDEA special education law to
have a right to a "free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment".
Under the equal protection clause, it is at least arguable that
therefore ALL children have a right to a "free and appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment". But that question
has not been decided.
Bob LeChevalier
>Mike Painter wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>
>> What rights?
>
>The right to life
There is no right to life.
>and all of its subordinate rights.
>
>> Who's rights?
>
>Humanity's.
Humanity has no rights.
>
>> Who decides?
>
>Nature.
Nature has no right to decide anything.
>> I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
>> responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
>
>Freedom comes by fighting for what is right
People don't agree as to what is right. Therefore fighting about it
is either inconclusive or tyranny by the winners over the losers.
Mike Painter
> Mike Painter wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>> What rights?
>
> The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
>
>> Who's rights?
>
> Humanity's.
>
>> Who decides?
>
> Nature.
>
provided by nature.
Go live in the jungle with a tribe for a while to find out what those
rights are.
Mike Painter
Thank you for playing.
Snipping does not make things go away.
buckeye
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>:|> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>:|> such a setting.
>:|
>:|Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>:|legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>:|establishment of social programs.
>:|
>:|Therefore, in looking at the issue in question, discussing religion
>:|in/out of the classroom on constitutional grounds is artificial and
>:|contrived.
(yawn)
If you really knew what you were talking it would be worthwhile messing
with you but since you don't it is higly boring and no challenge at all
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
buckeye
>:|Cary Kittrell wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>:|>> buckeye wrote:
>:|>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>:|>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>:|>>> such a setting.
>:|>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>:|>> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>:|>> establishment of social programs.
>:|>
>:|> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>:|> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>:|> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>:|>
>:|> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>:|
>:|Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
>:|in eduction"?
Of course I can and so could you if you even had a clue what you were
talking about.
Buyt I have already leanred that providing you with data is a waste of
tuime since you don't bother to study it and you bitch becaseu i don't
break it down into baby bites and spoon feed it to you
Peter Franks
> On Aug 16, 9:30 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
>>> Spending Clause.
>> In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent power; it
>> was powerless on its own.
>
> So said Madison. But Hamilton disagreed.
>
>> Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted far
>> beyond its original intent.
>
> The disagreement amongst the founders, along with the ambiguous
> language, disprove any clear original intent.
And that is why we appeal to reason.
Madison was correct; Hamilton was wrong, and we deal with the
unfortunate consequences.
Peter Franks
Your argument is predicated on the assumption that there is an intrinsic
and independent power in the Necessary and Proper clause. Proven false,
your argument is invalidated in its entirety.
Here is the proof of my assertion:
1.8.18:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper /for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers/..." (emphasis added)
The Necessary and Proper power is *strictly* dependent on specific
powers enumerated elsewhere in the text.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>> On Aug 16, 9:30 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
>>>>
>>>> Spending Clause.
>>>
>>> In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent power; it
>>> was powerless on its own.
>>
>>
>> So said Madison. But Hamilton disagreed.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted far
>>> beyond its original intent.
>>
>>
>> The disagreement amongst the founders, along with the ambiguous
>> language, disprove any clear original intent.
>
>
> And that is why we appeal to reason.
>
> Madison was correct; Hamilton was wrong
That's a conclusion, not reasoning.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
>>> Spending Clause.
>> In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent power; it
>> was powerless on its own.
>
> Prove it.
1.9.7
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations /made by Law/..." (emphasis added)
Such laws/legislative actions are dependent on explicitly and expressly
delegated powers (see 1.8 and Amendment X).
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> :|Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> :|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> :|>> buckeye wrote:
>> :|>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>> :|>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>> :|>>> such a setting.
>> :|>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>> :|>> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>> :|>> establishment of social programs.
>> :|>
>> :|> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>> :|> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>> :|> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>> :|>
>> :|> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>> :|
>> :|Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
>> :|in eduction"?
>
> Of course I can and so could you if you even had a clue what you were
> talking about.
>
> Buyt I have already leanred that providing you with data is a waste of
> tuime since you don't bother to study it and you bitch becaseu i don't
> break it down into baby bites and spoon feed it to you
Your actions indicate that you can't point it out.
Peter Franks
>> Who decides?
>
> Nature.
Corr.: The Creator.
Josh Rosenbluth
So? That doesn't say one word about whether Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 1 (Spending Power) is a dependent power.
Josh Rosenbluth
Mike Painter
Your ideas are nothing more than wistful thinking.
The SCOTUS and the other two branches of the government along with the vast
majority of the people governed do not agree withy you.
Take your arguments to alt.I.dont.have.to.pay.income.tax.
Peter Franks
Then the majority is wrong in this case.
Have a nice day.
Peter Franks
Those were two independent statements.
Peter Franks
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury" is referring to spending,
and therefore and subsequently, establishes a condition for spending.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> :|buckeye wrote:
>> :|> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>> :|> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>> :|> such a setting.
>> :|
>> :|Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>> :|legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>> :|establishment of social programs.
>> :|
>> :|Therefore, in looking at the issue in question, discussing religion
>> :|in/out of the classroom on constitutional grounds is artificial and
>> :|contrived.
>
> (yawn)
>
>
> If you really knew what you were talking it would be worthwhile messing
> with you but since you don't it is higly boring and no challenge at all
Your lack of a substantive response is noted.
Have a nice day.
Josh Rosenbluth
OK. So you have no reasoning to support yor conclusion.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > Peter Franks wrote:
>
> >> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
Yes. But, that does not say one word about whether the Spending
Clause (1.8.1) is an independent power which meets the condition of
1.9.7.
Josh Rosenbluth
Cary Kittrell
>
> Mike Painter wrote:
> > Peter Franks wrote:
> >> Mike Painter wrote:
> >>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:63opk.5030$dB6....@newsfe01.iad:
> >>>>>>>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and
> >>>>>>>>> there are constitutional issues that that come into play with
> >>>>>>>>> regards to religion in such a setting.
> >>>>>>>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government.
> >>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for the protection
> >>>>>>>> of rights, not the establishment of social programs.
> >>>>>>> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
> >>>>>>> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
> >>>>>> Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to
> >>>>>> involve it in eduction"?
> >>>>> in flood control, fire supression, space flight, medical care for
> >>>>> the elderly, the interstate freeway system, air traffic control,
> >>>>> the "War on Drugs", etc.
> >>>> Ok, /that/ imaginary place.
> >>>>
> >>>> None of what you mentioned is specifically authorized by the
> >>>> Constitution.
> >>>>> Anything not prohibitted by the Constitution may be addressed by
> >>>>> the Congress and signed into law by the President.
> >>>> Sorry, you must be referring to some totalitarian regime.
> >>>>
> >>>> WRT the US, take a look at Amendment X for further details.
> >>> Then read what those who understand it say about it.
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> >> Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source.
> >>
> >> If you have a point to make, use a definitive resource.
> >
> > If you can't do more than say it is not definitive, then there is no need to
> > make a point.
> > I say it is far more definitive than you are.
>
> The original assertion was: "Anything not prohibitted by the
> Constitution may be addressed by the Congress and signed into law by the
> President."
No, actually the original assertion was:
Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and
here are constitutional issues that that come into play with
regards to religion in such a setting.
to which you replied:
Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government.
Government, when legitimately established, is for the protection
of rights, not the establishment of social programs.
and subsequently the rest of the thread has been devoted to correcting
your misapprehension.
-- cary>
Cary Kittrell
Good point. After all, Wikipedia suffers in comparison
to the scholarly sources you have presented, which include...
well, I mean, there was ... I seem to recall your quoting from...
say, help me out here ,will you?
-- cary
Peter Franks
Sure, no problem.
My sources: Declaration of Independence; US Constitution; Amendments to
the US Constitution.
Peter Franks
> On Aug 18, 9:01 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 16, 9:30 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
>>>>>>> Spending Clause.
>>>>>> In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent
>>>>>> power; it
>>>>>> was powerless on its own.
>>>>> So said Madison. But Hamilton disagreed.
>>>>>> Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted far
>>>>>> beyond its original intent.
>>>>> The disagreement amongst the founders, along with the ambiguous
>>>>> language, disprove any clear original intent.
>>>> And that is why we appeal to reason.
>>>> Madison was correct; Hamilton was wrong
>>> That's a conclusion, not reasoning.
>> Those were two independent statements.
>
> OK. So you have no reasoning to support yor conclusion.
It hasn't yet been discussed.
Peter Franks
Are you implying that Spending uses sources other than the treasury?
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>> What rights?
>> The right to life
>
> There is no right to life.
?!
Wow. Are you a tyrant by chance?
>> and all of its subordinate rights.
>>
>>> Who's rights?
>> Humanity's.
>
> Humanity has no rights.
>>> Who decides?
>> Nature.
>
> Nature has no right to decide anything.
>
>
>>> I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
>>> responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
>> Freedom comes by fighting for what is right
>
> People don't agree as to what is right. Therefore fighting about it
> is either inconclusive or tyranny by the winners over the losers.
So, you concede and agree w/ the tyrant?
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>> What rights?
>>
>>> Who's rights?
>> Humanity's.
>>
>> Nature.
>
> How does nature, which is simply a label we give to everything that
> exists, decide a question of rights?
If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here. The right to
life comes from Nature/the Creator, and we now exercise that right.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >> What rights?
>> The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
>>
>>> Who's rights?
>> Humanity's.
>>
>>> Who decides?
>> Nature.
>>
> provided by nature.
I said no such thing.
Peter Franks
> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>> What rights?
>> Who decides?
>>
>> Does a person have a right to an education?
>
> Kids with disabilities are stated under IDEA special education law to
> have a right to a "free and appropriate public education in the least
> restrictive environment".
>
> Under the equal protection clause, it is at least arguable that
> therefore ALL children have a right to a "free and appropriate public
> education in the least restrictive environment". But that question
> has not been decided.
Rights don't come from clauses, constitutions, or amendments.
(Provided) education is a privilege, not a right.
A person has the right to educate themselves, but they do not have the
right to compel others to provide educational services.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
>>>> in a legitimate government.
>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>
> and/or backed by the courts.
Sorry, but only in the twisted world of the tyrant.
Rights exist independent of governments, constitutions, and courts. It
is precisely the recognition of that which lead to the establishment of
the US nation.
So, I'm gathering that in your perception, laws reign supreme.
Fortunately for those that choose to be enlightened, we can look back on
history and see what happens to those civilizations that believe and
practice such foolishness.
Cary Kittrell
(well, I won *that* bet)
And of course, everyone else in this thread has been using "your
sources" as well. Verbatim, as often as not.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Cary Kittrell
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
> >>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
> >>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
> >>>> in a legitimate government.
> >>> In constitutional government, it is.
> >> Not where rights reign supreme.
> >
> > Rights don't reign anywhere, except as recognized by the constitution
> > and/or backed by the courts.
>
> Sorry, but only in the twisted world of the tyrant.
>
> Rights exist independent of governments, constitutions, and courts. It
> is precisely the recognition of that which lead to the establishment of
> the US nation.
So you are claiming that "rights" have some sort of external,
objective reality, in the same sense as the element thallium
or the planet Neptune are externally and objectively real, and
would exist whether we were aware of them or not?
Interesting. And I assume that since rights have this
independent existence, you can enumerate them, list them in their
entirety, and describe by what means you have determined their
existence?
That would be most fascinating. Please commence:
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
Ever heard of deficit spending?
In this country, at the Federal level, appropriations (federal
expenditures) are entirely independent of income.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>L. Raymond wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>>> What rights?
>>> The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
>>>
>>>> Who's rights?
>>> Humanity's.
>>>
>>>> Who decides?
>>> Nature.
>>
>> How does nature, which is simply a label we give to everything that
>> exists, decide a question of rights?
>
>If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here.
That does not follow.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>>> What rights?
>>> The right to life
>>
>> There is no right to life.
>
>?!
>
>Wow. Are you a tyrant by chance?
Nope.
>>>> I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
>>>> responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
>>> Freedom comes by fighting for what is right
>>
>> People don't agree as to what is right. Therefore fighting about it
>> is either inconclusive or tyranny by the winners over the losers.
>
>So, you concede and agree w/ the tyrant?
No. I do, however, accept that reality doesn't have a lot to do with
our ideals.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
>>>>>> never in a legitimate government.
>>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>> What rights?
>>> Who's rights?
>>> Who decides?
>>>
>>> Does a person have a right to an education?
>>
>> Kids with disabilities are stated under IDEA special education law to
>> have a right to a "free and appropriate public education in the least
>> restrictive environment".
>>
>> Under the equal protection clause, it is at least arguable that
>> therefore ALL children have a right to a "free and appropriate public
>> education in the least restrictive environment". But that question
>> has not been decided.
>
>Rights don't come from clauses, constitutions, or amendments.
Yes they do, plus the courts. If a right is not recognized by
authority, it doesn't exist.
>(Provided) education is a privilege, not a right.
In this country, it is stated in laws to be a right.
>A person has the right to educate themselves, but they do not have the
>right to compel others to provide educational services.
In this country, they do, if they are children.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
>>>>> in a legitimate government.
>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>
>> Rights don't reign anywhere, except as recognized by the constitution
>> and/or backed by the courts.
>
>Sorry, but only in the twisted world of the tyrant.
No. In the real world of the human being, as opposed to the idealized
pseudo-world of the political dogmatist.
>Rights exist independent of governments, constitutions, and courts.
Only in your imagination.
Your "right to life" ends when someone puts a bullet into your brain,
and that sort of thing happens much more frequently in the absence of
"governments, constitutions, and courts".
Likewise, if you contract a fatal disease, you will find out what
"nature" thinks of your so-called "right to life".
>It is precisely the recognition of that which lead to the establishment of
>the US nation.
No. You MIGHT legitimately claim that it was the "belief" in that as
an ideal that led to some key individuals being willing to lead a
revolt against the British crown. But belief and reality are often
(usually?) unrelated.
>So, I'm gathering that in your perception, laws reign supreme.
This is a society of laws and not men.
In the absence of universal agreement on principles, that is the best
that we can do.
>Fortunately for those that choose to be enlightened, we can look back on
>history and see what happens to those civilizations that believe and
>practice such foolishness.
They survive. The others fall apart into anarchy, or stay together by
the personal power of what you call a "tyrant".
buckeye
>:|WRT the US, take a look at Amendment X for further details.
Ahhhhhh, Amendment 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Understand the Tenth Amendment, it is important to know that the
constitution delegates, or gives, certain powers to the federal government.
Most of these powers are actually enumerated, or named. . .
The federal government has other powers besides those clearly
listed in the Constitution. These are implied, or unstated, powers. of
They cover a variety of matters. The Constitutions states that Congress
shall "make all Laws which shall be necessary proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United states." This "'necessary and
proper"clause (or elastic clause) gives the federal government the legal
right to exercise the implied power that is connected to its clearly listed
powers. For example, the federal government has the enumerated power to
make laws concerning trade between states. That power has been stretched
to include things not specifically listed in the Constitution such as
regulating air, bus, train, and truck transportation between states. The
federal government also regulates TV and radio. The issue of implied
powers was first raised by Chief Justice John Marshall
The Constitution also gives part of the federal government
Congress-the power "to provide for the ... general welfare of the United
States." Under this power, the federal government has done many things not
listed in the Constitution. For example, the federal government has built
dams and flood control projects. It has set up national parks. It has
established a billion dollar system of social security benefits for older
citizens and for the disabled and poor.
The federal government also shares certain powers with the states.
These concurrent, or shared, powers include setting and collecting taxes,
passing criminal laws on the same matter, and spending money for-the good
of the public.
The Constitution also names particular things that the states may
not do. For instance, states may not enter into treaties with countries.
Nor may states make laws that interfere with contracts or give people
titles of nobility (such as "count" or "duchess"). States are also
prohibited from coining money.
The states have thousands of powers. Every state creates and
controls its own government and sets voting requirements for its citizens.
The state controls local business, labor, and professions, as well as the
ownership, use, and sale of property. The state has tremendous
responsibility for looking after its citizens' health and welfare. It has
the power to set and collect taxes for these purposes. Looking out for its
citizens means controlling schools, hospitals, roads, and other public
services. It means making laws that require vaccinations and limiting
automobile exhaust fumes. It means outlawing forms of gambling and
forbidding ownership of dangerous weapons. It means establishing highway
speed limits and controlling the sale and use of alcoholic beverages. It
can also mean forbidding the sale of soft drinks if they are in bottles or
cans that aren't accepted for return.
From the beginning, the states kept some of these important powers
for themselves. After all, the Tenth Amendment says that all powers not
given to the federal government or forbidden to the states are reserved
to-that is, belong to-either the states or the people.
The Preamble, or first part, of the Constitution begins with the phrase,
"We the People. . ." and ends with". . . do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.," All the powers that the
Constitution of the United States gives, both to the states and to the
federal government, flow directly from the people.
Now think about what the Tenth Amendment is really saying:
All powers that are not given to the federal government or forbidden to the
states belong-- either to the states or to the people. The Tenth Amendment
really seems to be setting limits on the power of the federal government.
Yet this is exactly what the main part of the Constitution itself does. In
fact, many scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment only repeats what is
said in the Constitution. If this is true, then why has the Tenth
Amendment been interpreted--its meaning studied and debated--over and over
again?
To answer this question, compare the wording of the Tenth Amendment
with these travel directions: , 'Drive 14.2 miles. Turn left just before
the bridge. Continue for two blocks. Stop at the bank on your right." How
detailed is the amendment compared with the travel directions? Does the
amendment give an exact road map for the constitutional traveler? The
answer is clearly no.
Some scholars believe that those who wrote the Tenth Amendment
purposely made it vague, or fuzzy. Why would they want to do that?
Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781) will help
to explain this. Article 11, like the Tenth Amendment that came after it,
deals with the power of state governments and the federal government. But
Article 11 includes a key word that is not found in the Tenth Amendment.
Pay special attention -to the underlined [capitalized] word as you read the
Article:
Each State retains its sovereignty [power not controlled by any other
power], freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right,
which is not by this confederation EXPRESSLY delegated to the United
States, in Congress assembled. [underlining-capitalized- added]
The word expressly means " directly " or " specifically. " A sign in a
restaurant that sets aside one area expressly for nonsmokers means "Keep
out of this area if you wish to smoke!" A Congress that has only those
powers expressly delegated to itself is also limited. It may do only those
things that the Constitution actually names as its fight. It may not do
anything more. The U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation was
called a body without a head. It was the word expressly that had chopped
the head off that national body.
Those who were present at the 1787 Constitutional Convention knew
how Article II of the Articles of Confederation had weakened the federal
government earlier. Delegates who attended the state conventions to ratify
the Constitution probably knew it, too. The word expressly didn't bother
the Anti-Federalists. In fact, they pressed hard to have the word
expressly included in any amendment about the "reserved powers" of the
states.
After the Constitutional Convention had approved the Constitution,
the states held their own conventions to make decisions about ratifying it.
The Federalists had tried hard to persuade state delegates to vote for the
Constitution. They convinced the delegates that amendments should be
decided on separately from the Constitution itself. The states therefore
came up with various ideas for amendments. Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, South Carolina, and Virginia all wrote amendments that reserved
to the states those powers not delegated to the central government. Except
for Virginia, all of these states wanted the new amendment to keep for the
states all powers ,"expressly " or "clearly," delegated to the federal
government.
On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced the various state
amendments to Congress. His wording for the "reserved powers" amendment
stated: "The powers not delegated to this constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively." When the Senate
approved the amendment on September 7, 1789, it included the words "or to
the people." Both the Senate and the House of Representatives accepted the
amendment as the twelfth and last one. Then, after two other amendments
were rejected, the "reserved powers" amendment moved up two places and
became the tenth amendment in the list. After Congress voted to propose
the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, it was up to the states to
ratify these amendments. In 1791 the Tenth Amendment and the other nine
amendments were finally ratified.
Remember, the Tenth Amendment did not include the word expressly.
What effect would this have on the way in which the amendment was received?
As you may have guessed, it left the door wide open for different
interpretations of federal powers.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights,
The Tenth Amendment, Judith Adams, Silver Burdett Press. (1991) pp 31-36
*******************************************************************
"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."
That's the Tenth Amendment. It's a cut-and-paste job of a part of the
Articles of Confederation that limited the Confederation government to
powers not EXPRESSLY delegated to it by the Articles. James Madison
carefully knocked the word "expressly" out of the text of the amendment so
that it would not prevent the federal government from exercising powers not
expressly provided by the Constitution but implied by its provisions and
not specifically barred.
**************************************************************
THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT
. . . The great national debate continued unabated as the
confederationalist school caused another kind of impasse, as many States
made their demands for a Bill of Rights known. Many agreed to ratify the
Constitution with the provision that a Bill of Rights would be attached
with all due haste after its ratification. There was some that insisted
that it not be ratified without it, but those who had toiled over its
drafting were convincing in their protests that they were not optimistic
about a second convention being successful. The first had barely escaped an
impasse. So the Constitution was ratified with the understanding that a
Bill of Rights would be submitted for ratification immediately afterwards.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reflects this demand, in much softer
language:
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added..."
Some States even went so far as to include their right to secede from the
Union in their ratifying documents. This could not be easily denied,
especially at the time, and it sent a clear message to the new Congress - a
Bill of Rights or face the secession of States from the "more perfect
union", the shortest lived union of its kind in all time. Some were opposed
to creating such a Bill, but political expediency won the day and a Bill of
Rights was produced that satisfied many of the demands of the
confederationalist school. Of particular note was the Tenth Amendment that
many States had specifically demanded:
"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."
The Tenth Amendment is a more generally worded version of reserved rights
of the State governments that is found in Article II of the Articles of
Confederation. What was not included in Article II are any references to
the people, which reflects what the ratifiers of the Constitution had come
to believe was the nature of the new Constitutional Federalism.
http://www.ktas.org/confed2.htm
**********************************************************
THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT
THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY
TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT:
THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH AMENDMENT:
OPENING A SECOND FRONT
PETE DU PONT*
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/10am.html
Perhaps it is the structure of the Constitution that has enabled the
federal judiciary to run roughshod over the Tenth Amendment. As one
commentator has observed, "whatever the Founders' intentions, the rules
they wrote are skewed in favor of national power."9
A plan for a sustained devolution of power from centralized government
might be accomplished through three mechanisms: a federalism statute; a
federal statute narrowing the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and a
constitutional amendment further clarifying the Tenth Amendment itself.
A Federalism Statute. The most effective way to focus the federal
judiciary's attention on the importance of the Tenth Amendment, and to make
sure that the federalist structure of government it commands is reinstated,
is to force such ideas on the federal judiciary using congressional powers.
A federalism statute with the purpose of both instructing the federal
courts and empowering state governments would contain half a dozen
elements, each of which is intended to promote a greater recognition of
state and local governments' rights and to codify the intentions of
Congress for its future role vis-a-vis the States.
First, the statute should contain a statement of principles to guide the
judiciary in the application of the Tenth Amendment. Justice Thomas'
dissent in the Term Limits case provides them:25
* the federal government enjoys no authority beyond what the
Constitution confers -- its powers are limited and enumerated;
* the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not
withhold from them; and
* where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a power, the
federal government lacks it and the States enjoy it.
In addition to a statement of principles, the statute should state that the
Tenth Amendment is intended to provide substantive limits on Congress'
power; that the States need not rely solely on the political process for
protection against burdensome Congressional exercise; and that the
protections afforded the States by the Tenth Amendment should be enforced
by the judiciary when Congress oversteps its boundaries and infringes on
state sovereignty. The U.S. Supreme Court has not abandoned these concepts
entirely, as indicated by its 1992 decision in New York v. United States,26
in which the Court struck down a portion of The Low Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 198527 as an impermissible Congressional mandate
for states to regulate their citizens. But a codification of these
principles is an important step in strengthening Tenth Amendment viability
in the eyes of the courts.
Finally, the statute should follow with four specific statements of
Congressional self-limitation:28
1. A statement that there shall be no preemption of state and local
authority unless Congress expressly declares its intent to do so. This
"clear statement" requirement in areas where Congress may be impeding state
powers is important to the concept of political accountability. Only with
full and accurate understanding of both who is making decisions and what
decisions have been made can the people in a democracy make an informed
decision as to the policies they desire to be implemented and who shall
represent them in carrying out those policies.29
2. A statement that all federal laws and administrative regulations issued
pursuant thereto shall not be interpreted by the courts to infringe in any
material way upon the authority and capacity of state and local governments
to perform their basic and traditional functions, unless expresslydeclared
by Congress.
3. A provision prohibiting Congress from imposing conditions on federal
grants unless such conditions are expressly stated, are reasonable, and
have a direct relationship to the program being funded. This provision goes
further than the Court would have allowed in the New York v. United States
case, in which the Court acknowledged that conditions attached to the
receipt of federal funds must "bear some relationship to the purpose of the
federal spending . . . ."30
4. A limitation on federal mandates, drawn from the "Headlee amendment"
approved in Michigan to that state's constitution.31 Such an amendment
would restrict the federal government from mandating programs to state and
local governments without appropriating the money necessary to comply with
the mandates. Unfunded mandates undermine political accountability, by
placing the selection of policies in Washington and the execution of them
in state capitals.
A Federal Statute Narrowing the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Further
Congressional action in support of a federalist system of government could
be achieved by utilizing the "Exceptions Clause" of Article III of the
Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts on certain
federalism issues.32 Although rarely invoked, the power of Congress to
limit the jurisdiction of federal courts is well established.33 For
example, in 1932 Congress passed and President Hoover signed the Norris
LaGuardia Anti Injunction Act34 utilizing Article III to restrict the
ability of federal courts to intervene in labor strikes.
The Supreme Court, in Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., upheld this attempt by
Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, holding that
"[t]here can be no question of the power of Congress to define and limit
the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States." 35
As Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone stated in Lockerty v. Phillips:36 "The
Congressional power to ordain and establish inferior courts includes the
power of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent, or
exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in the exact degrees
and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good."
These constitutional provisions can serve as the foundation of a statute to
remove from the federal courts the power to review matters left to the
States by the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. While the drafting of a
federal statute to narrow federal court jurisdiction would require careful
thought, its objectives are clear: to restore state power, as envisioned by
the Constitution, over a wide range of issues, including state and local
taxation; the terms of employment of state and local governmental
employees; educational standards, funding and transportation; state
welfare, housing and transportation matters; the drinking age; abortion;
local commerce; and so forth.
An "Exceptions Clause" statute to remove the power of the federal courts
over school bussing might read: "No court of the United States, as herein
defined, shall have jurisdiction to issue any order in a case involving or
growing out of a dispute involving the transportation of students to
achieve a racial balance in schools or classrooms; nor shall any order
regarding the transportation of students to achieve a racial balance in
schools or classrooms be issued contrary to the public policy declared in
this Act."
A Constitutional Amendment. Although more difficult to achieve,
Constitutional amendments offer another viable method of restoring and
strengthening federalist principles. In fact, to settle the issue of
federalism with some degree of finality, a Constitutional amendment would
be the most appropriate solution. The most direct approach would be to
enact a constitutional amendment to clarify the Tenth Amendment, and while
I do not offer the following as draft language of a constitutional
amendment, it does convey the spirit of what needs to be enacted: "The
several states and the people shall have all powers not expressly delegated
herein to the federal government or which are directly necessary to, and
inseparable from, such express powers, whether such powers existed prior
to, or were created after, the ratification of this Constitution; and the
federal government shall have only those powers as are expresslyenumerated
herein or which are directly necessary to, and inseparable from, such
express powers."
* * * *
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Alex W.
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:Vtoqk.33157$KZ.1...@newsfe03.iad...
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Government, when legitimately established, is for
>>>>>> whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
>>>>> Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of
>>>>> bondage, but never in a legitimate government.
>>>> In constitutional government, it is.
>>> Not where rights reign supreme.
>>
>> Rights don't reign anywhere, except as recognized by the
>> constitution
>> and/or backed by the courts.
>
> Sorry, but only in the twisted world of the tyrant.
>
> Rights exist independent of governments, constitutions,
> and courts. It is precisely the recognition of that which
> lead to the establishment of the US nation.
Even if that were correct -- which it isn't -- it would be
pointless, since a right without the ability to exercise and
enforce it is meaningless. It is only through institutions
established and supported by society that our rights become
meaningful.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
PF: What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind
Act?
JR: Spending Clause.
PF: In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent
power; it was powerless on its own.
JR: So said Madison. But Hamilton disagreed.
PF: Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted
far
beyond its original intent.
JR: The disagreement amongst the founders, along with the ambiguous
language, disprove any clear original intent.
PF: And that is why we appeal to reason.
Madison was correct; Hamilton was wrong
JR: That's a conclusion, not reasoning.
PF: Those were two independent statements.
JR: OK. So you have no reasoning to support yor conclusion.
PF: It hasn't yet been discussed.
JR: You brought it up: "Madison was correct; Hamilton was wrong."
Thus, I agree:
Josh Rosenbluth
No, and that's a heckuva non-sequitir. Now, back to our topic.
You claimed that 1.8.1 is a dependent power (Madison's view). When
asked to prove it, you argued:
1) 1.9.7 says you can only spend in accordance with law
2) Laws require an explicit power behind them (10th Amendment)
3) 1.8.1 is not an explicit power
You are right about #1 and #2, but #3 assumes your conclusion. Heck,
I could just as easily argue the same #1 and #2, but insert a modified
#3 (Hamilton's view):
3) 1.8.1 is an explicit power
Of course, my "reasoning" would suffer from the same defect as yours
(assuming the conclusion).
Josh Rosenbluth
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
>> Good point. After all, Wikipedia suffers in comparison
>> to the scholarly sources you have presented, which include...
>> well, I mean, there was ... I seem to recall your quoting from...
>> say, help me out here ,will you?
>
> Sure, no problem.
>
> My sources: Declaration of Independence; US Constitution; Amendments
> to the US Constitution.
bearing on what the reality is.
Cary Kittrell
Whoa! Even here on Usenet, where self-inflicted foot wounds are
an everyday occurrence, that one shines like a roadside-accident
flare.
"We have rights, and these rights come from Nature. End of discussion.
Well, unless, you know, there's a Creator, in which case rights
come from the Creator. End of discussion. I'm telling you".
-- cary
Alex W.
>
> If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here.
> The right to life comes from Nature/the Creator, and we
> now exercise that right.
The right to life is a human construct of pretty recent
origin. Early civilisations and even Western civilisation
until well after the Middle Ages would have had no idea what
you are talking about. The notion quite simply did not
exist.
Moreover, it is a right we ourselves qualify, hedge and
limit. We define exceptions and limits, and as a principle
we restrict it to our species alone. This alone is evidence
that it's neither universal nor divine.
graysh...@gmail.com
> I believe that religion and education should go hand in hand, when
> prayer was mandatory and God could be talked about, we didnt see the
> problems we have today! Yes everyone is entitled to their beliefs but
> for those atheists or all you so called freedom of choice believers
> did you not take away my rights when you told me I couldnt mention God
> or say prayer before school...how about when you say I cant have a
> report on Jesus or Buddah or whoever I choose to worship because I am
> infringing on their rights! My rights are taken away daily by people
> like this. If you dont want to pray be quiet if you cant stand to hear
> Gods name, shut your ears, whistle whatever you choose to do Religion
> and school should be made to be required!!!!!!
Someone who can't even spell "separate" is hardly qualified to make /any/
judgements/judgments (both are "correct") about education.
Gray Shockley
-------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
teach...@yahoo.com
> I believe that religion and education should go hand in hand, when
> prayer was mandatory and God could be talked about, we didnt see the
> problems we have today!
Students can talk about God all they want - but teachers are, quite
correctly, prohibited from teaching religion to students.
> Yes everyone is entitled to their beliefs but
> for those atheists or all you so called freedom of choice believers
> did you not take away my rights when you told me I couldnt mention God
> or say prayer before school...
The short answer is - NO! You can pray all you want, but teachers are,
quite correctly, prohibited in forcing prayers on students in their
classrooms.
> how about when you say I cant have a
> report on Jesus or Buddah or whoever I choose to worship because I am
> infringing on their rights!
Students do write reports on religious figures all the time. But,
quite correctly, they are prohibited from preaching their doctrines in
the guise of making a class presentation.
> My rights are taken away daily by people
> like this.
No they aren't. No one has told you what religion to practice.
> If you dont want to pray be quiet if you cant stand to hear
> Gods name, shut your ears, whistle whatever you choose to do Religion
> and school should be made to be required!!!!!!
No! You are attempting to impose your beliefs on others. You can pray
all you want - on your own time.
Read Matthew 6:5 to see what your own Bible says about presumptuous
and showy public displays of religiosity.
[~
buckeye
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|Cary Kittrell wrote:
>:|>> :|> Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>:|>> :|>> buckeye wrote:
>:|>> :|>>> Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and there are
>:|>> :|>>> constitutional issues that that come into play with regards to religion in
>:|>> :|>>> such a setting.
>:|>> :|>> Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government, when
>:|>> :|>> legitimately established, is for the protection of rights, not the
>:|>> :|>> establishment of social programs.
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
>:|>> :|> will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
>:|>> :|> choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
>:|>> :|in eduction"?
>:|>
>:|> Of course I can and so could you if you even had a clue what you were
>:|> talking about.
>:|>
>:|> Buyt I have already leanred that providing you with data is a waste of
>:|> tuime since you don't bother to study it and you bitch becaseu i don't
>:|> break it down into baby bites and spoon feed it to you
>:|
>:|Your actions indicate that you can't point it out.
Oh silly man. I do not accept your "grade school yard childish dares"
You should know by now that I can back up anything I state easily. If I
have not personally researched something I will state that fact.
Otherwise I can back up my claims with vast amounts of documentation,
I have done that with you in the past only to read your belly aching
complaints that you offer as excuses because you are too lazy to bother
and read that which I provided.
Josh will play with you, sometimes Bob will, I don't waste my time.
I say again:
>:|>> :|Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to involve it
>:|>> :|in eduction"?
>:|>
>:|> Of course I can and so could you if you even had a clue what you were
>:|> talking about.
>:|>
>:|> But I have already learned that providing you with data is a waste of
>:|> time since you don't bother to study it and you bitch because I don't
>:|> break it down into baby bites and spoon feed it to you