Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I am not a qualified constitutional lawyer, but I do have a qualification in this area. Is this what you are getting at?
P.S. It's not United States constitutional law
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I am not a qualified constitutional lawyer, but I do have a qualification in this area. Is this what you are getting at?
P.S. It's not United States constitutional law
Right... an Australian who has never even been here is trying to tell me... someone who was educated on our constitution for years in school where at one point I had to have the entire thing INCLUDING the bill of rights memorized because were tested on it and actually had to write in out as parts of tests. Which I aced because I was on the honor role during those years...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Now I wasn't born yesterday... and while under today's school system many students can't find north America on a globe... unless it was printed on it in big letters... that wasn't the case back in the 60's and 70's before I graduated.
This is exactly what I am trying to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
That, correct just because you have lived in a country all your life doesn't mean you have any useful knowledge. In fact an very large number of citizens would have no knowledge in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Learning facts does necessarily mean you understand those facts. I can only gain your understanding from what I have read.
I won't disagree that a lot of people manage to somehow graduate high school these days while remaining dumb as stumps and that happens in a number of countries... and an even larger number graduating from College think they know everything there is to know. They will learn its otherwise when they manage to get their first REAL job someplace. That's when your real education just gets started in most career fields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I however am not one of them. I did really well in school and college without having to study for hours to ace the tests. The political correct thing here was just getting started as I was nearing graduation.. and we still had corporal punishment in the schools until some point AFTER I graduated.
We didn't have advanced placement courses or curriculum when I was in high school (or at least at my school) or I would likely have been in it. I had already taken almost everything I could take before my Senior year....And I was in the curriculum preparing for college.
Schools taught facts and provided an education before then...they weren't there to make you feel good about yourself which today is apparently their focus..
I don't feel a need to impress anyone with big words.....I've done so well in a number of jobs because I have a knack for explaining things in a way non-technical people can understand technical issues.... I got drafted rewriting technical manuals on products I worked in the R&D department on out of college...because the other engineers weren't able to put things into easily understood terms for the users. Thankfully I didn't have to do it all that often, I only did a dozen manuals over 7 years, which was fine by me....I'm not a writer at heart. Never was...I still am not.
Not everyone has walked in your shoes, and for sure you have not walked in the shoes of many of your own country men. You don't have to judge, or hate, to understand that do you? Matter of fact how can you understand if you do either?
Or are you just a grouch? :D
Empathy is for women... I'm not a woman.
Many of my own countrymen are utterly clueless about a lot of every day things... I have every right to hate those who try to tell me things are NOT the way I've actually seen them to be... when they get 100% of their information from sources that are anything but accurate or unbiased.
Know the old saying "ignorance is bliss......" Most people have no idea how true that is... and how ignorant they are of many events that happen every day...
Has seeing this stuff for years jaded my perspective on a lot of things? Yes it has... it disgusts me... it pi sses me off to no end... and the fact I see so many sheeple just accept what they are told as irrefutable fact... (look at anything that's come out of the White House Spokesman in recent years) Yes politicians lie... but they didn't use to lie about practically everything all the time like now.
I'd LOVE to go back to living in some small rural town... oblivious to most of the crap that's going around on a daily basis. Only a pathological liar could find comfort or enjoy the steady stream of lies and misinformation that poses as "NEWS" these days. I dislike lies, misinformation and propaganda unless its in situations where they are actually called for. ERGO...time of war type stuff.
And only a idealistic fool like Snowden would gather up the proof and spread it around knowing what would happen to him.
A lions share of what I've seen over the years... will never be repeated to anyone because I'm no idealistic fool. I treat it as one of the responsibilities that went with the job. One that I knew and accepted going into it, and I know its actually worse everywhere else...
Meaning as bad as it is... I know for a fact it could always get a lot worse.
Learning something by rote doesn't mean you understand it, look at the muslims they learn the Quoran by rote. what good does it do them?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You see smoothy knowledge is not much good to you unless you can apply it. If you were a constitutional lawyer having a perfect knowledge of the wording of the constitution might be useful.
I think it is quite possible many americans could not find north america, or anywhereelse for that matter, and whose fault is it, those teachers who thought it a great idea to have students learn the constitution by rote and salute the flag, in other places it is called brain washing
.
You continue to prove how ignorant you are with statement like these. It's like a train wreck that fun to watch.Quote:
Empathy is for women
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
It is apparent you were beaten about the head with some very large books, you must have been to have a head as thick as that
Unlike most laws... our constitution wasn't written in Legalese... it was written to be understood by the average person. And that IS the opinion of a number of Constitutional Lawyers as well as Constitutional Scholars. It is what it says....there are no hidden meanings to anything in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Did someone piss in your Wheaties or did your dog bite you after getting tired of you kicking it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
But the interpretation can be varied--note all the courtrooms and the lawyers who argue in them. The Second Amendment alone is wide open to interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
It was ALL written in the same language... the second amendment is no more open to interpretation than the first is... or any of the others... That concept is a liberal concept... writtien in it NOPLACE is anything to the effect of "EXCEPT this...... or EXCEPT that...."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Like Clinton testifiying " It all depends on what the interpretation of "is" is." Or trying to argue what he and Monica Lewenski did wasn't sex......and people defending him.
Except of course if THEIR spouse were to do the same exact thing.
If the language is plain why does it take the Supreme Court to intrepret it, what isn't apparent in the wording is the idea behind it, that is what is open to intrepretation. For example does the use of the word militia preclude the use of a standing army, and suggest relying only on the citizen soldier. Does the wording make no laws actually mean religion is exempt from the law of the land. Does the term originate only acsent or does it preclude any money appropriated in any bill originating in the Senate. I ask this because it would seem later events have led to different intrepretationsQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
So when the founder wrote all men are created equal they weren't just talking about white men who owned land? Or did they mean except poor people, women and slaves? What's your interpretation to that?
Jefferson wanted to bring up slavery in the Declaration, but that Franklin cautioned against it for fear of bringing disunity to the colonies when they need to unite against King George III.
So they compromised for the greater good, (probably over cognac and cigars). Knowing good and damn well the unwritten "except for slaves, women and poor" was understood. And it did stand until Lincoln came along.
and yet Jefferson died broke . Samual Adams had to borrow decent clothing to attend . Washington started out rich .But lost more than half his net worth while he served in the Continental Army ,without pay. The fact is that most of the wealthy in the colonies were loyalists . Yes some were rich .But most led very middle class existences .
The fact is that there were few efforts to abolish slavery before the Declaration . The Declaration turned the tide in the debate . The few efforts that were attempted were stopped by the Crown. The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery—and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. Founders John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph,all released their slaves after independence.
1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer and Governor of New Jersey William Livingston heard of the New York society he wrote them a letter of support . Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift;all founders were also members of anti-slavery societies.
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
Washington said “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
So your argument that the anti-slavery movement began with Lincoln is nonsense .
When they debated the Constitution ,they added the 3/5 compromise which was in fact an ANTI slavery provision to the Constitution. What the clause did was restrict the power of the Southern slave states by counting the slaves for the purpose of apportionment as less than a free person. Had slaves been counted as a full person then the power of the South would've been greater . Southern states were denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
You misunderstood my reference to the slaves being freed under Lincoln, as the war was over the unfair economic situation that the institution gave the south which was compromised with a deal about the new frontier states being formed, that fell through and the south decided screw Lincoln. Had the deal gone through part of the US would have slavery still.
It was all a big political game that leaves us with the same situation, who has the right to bestow rights on other. Its always been about power, money, and influence, and who has it. Even Lincoln would be a RINO to that end by today's standard and it still a war even though the shooting has ceased long ago.
It's no coincidence that the south is a republican stronghold, and poverty abound in republican influenced states.
it's still the Dems that want to keep minorities on plantations ....plantations run by the government .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 AM. |