Ultron

It does NOT have the power to protect rights not enumerated. That doesn't mean the govt can immediately infringe on those rights. But it does mean that those additional claimed rights are given Constitutional protection, taking that power away from the states or the people. That's straight from the 10th. How can the US Constitution claim powers it doesn't have?

I _never_ said or impled you questioned the Amendment process. I just showed that the Amendment process can be used to take away even federally-protected Constitutional rights. And your other statements above agree with the statements I have made. Just follow this scenario: (I know I know you probably hate my scenarios by now )

You have the right to drink alcohol. But it's not a federally-protected Constitutional right. Which means the states can individually limit that right to drink alcohol.

So just there, you can see that a right you have, that isn't infringed upon at all by the Federal govt, is STILL infringed upon by state rights. It's out of the people's hands. It's out of the federal govt's hands.

Correct?

Now lets create the Alcohol Rights amendment. Wow! All of a sudden the federal govt has offered a Constitutional protection of drinking alcohol. That means it's out of the state's hands now.

But wait, there's more!

Let's ban that right to drink alcohol. BAM! Another right infringed, at the federal level. It's still out of the hands of the people, but now it's out of the hands of the states, too.

What the 9th Amendment says is that Congress can't pass laws on things that it doesn't have power over. The powers of govt are determined by what's listed in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean new Amendments can't add or subtract the power of the federal govt, or that the states themselves can't limit those rights on their own accord.

No, the federal govt can infringe on those rights, they just need an Amendment to do so. What I am arguing is that those rights to wear blue shoes, etc can be infringed upon STILL by the state and federal govts. That's why article 5 is so important because it explains how the federal govt adds that power.

Yes, those are rights that cannot be infringed upon by the states, or by other people, because of those Constitutional protections. The federal govt cannot infringe on those rights without Amendment. But my point still stands that the federal and state govts can still infringe on those rights. The 10th Amendment clearly shows this. Article 5 shows how the federal govt can.

Understood. My whole point is that these rights aren't protected by the federal govt. That means the states can infringe on those rights. Regardless the federal govt can ALWAYS infringe on those rights, they just need an Amendment to do so. Even federally-protected rights have the same weakness of being repealed or banned, as rights not protected by the Constitution.

See my point?

I think you and I are in rough agreement here, but you didn't know beforehand where I was coming from. So I think that's why there's the confusion.

I just think you and I haven't gone far enough in the debate for you to see where we agree and disagree on.

Ultron

The govt CAN do whatever it wants. The problem is that it is supposed to be restricted by Article 5 on how it adds powers to itself. So it's not easy to add those powers if we take Constitutional law literally.

My disgust at judicial review should clue you in one where I stand on this issue, considering that power was not added Constitutionally.

You would be suprised.

None taken.

Ultron

No you're just fine. Maybe I'm not clear or something. We'll figure it out.

Ultron

Well my whole purpose for entering this discussion is to talk about this issue of flag burning. You've already begun pages ago, and I've continued alongside you, if in some disagreement with you. I don't see why you should neccessarily stop because you and I might be at an impasse.

The good thing is that the details can be worked out through discussion.

That's the thing, speech is vocal communication. It's not literally imagery. Nobody here will outright say that speech is literally an image of something. My whole point is that the law should be interpreted literally. If they wanted imagery and all forms of symbolic representation they should have been more specific. Burning the flag can mean one thing to one person, and something else to another. If we can't take the law literally then we doom ourselves to any interpretation under the sun, because we don't set a limit on what something means.

There is nothing counter-intuitive about being literal. Would you rather someone be vague to you, or literal? When you discuss something, wouldn't you like the terminology to be explicit rather than implicit? Written words are a form of symbolic communication, but so is speech or anything else. But if the founding fathers wanted all forms of communication covered they should have used different words. As it stands, if the letter of the law means anything to anyone, the literal letter of the law must be paramount.

No, we'd Amend the Constitution to guarantee more specific rights, as has been done before. I'm not saying there are no rights whatsoever, only that the federal govt only protects so many of them.

Wait, we already are. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure who that is directed to. I'm certainly not implying we are a police state, or arguing for one. I'm sure there are plenty who consider America to be a totalitarian Nazi regime etc etc but I'm not here to debate rhetoric.

No on the contrary I only claim that Congress can pass laws that it has the powers spelled out in the Constitution. The problem is that Congress has way outstripped it's authority to do so by creating other law-making bodies who have no Constitutional authority to do so. Where specifically is the NEA created in the Constitution? I missed that article. And I suspect as a Libertarian you have the same question.

I can't argue with that. What most people don't realize is that laws are almost always restrictions, not protections. All these "regulatory agencies" are law-making bodies with no Constitutional power.

Well they are a failure because they aren't trying to protect the Constitution. Or some people on the bench aren't. Some are there to add new meaning into the Constitution, away from the literal intention of it. Throughout history this has been a problem that has plagued both Conservative and Liberal justices alike.

Ultron

Agreed.

Ultron

Well I won't argue the issue here.

beyelzu

using a definition of anti american as one who hates, extremely dislikes, despises, etc america. if someone consistently expresses views that match that definition not with the idea of improving but only bitching.

I dont have a problem with dissident speach. There is alot about america that I am not proud of, mistakes that we have made. But that is not the point. I do not simply label people as being antiamerican if they dislike some of the things that america does. But when the only views you express about something are negative then it is not unreasonable to assume that you do not like that thing.

I simply think that he hates(extremly dislikes, despises, etc.) america and is thus anti american. of course it is his right. but I find that if someone is only going to spew rhetoric that supporst their ideology and never consider at all the opposing side then whats the point of conversing with that person.

why dont you read the preach it mandela thread here in the pd. I asserted that mandela was spewing anti american rhetoric. I got jumped on. what is overlooked is that mandela actually said that americans dont value human life which is definitely an example of antiamerican rhetoric.

furthermore, kreiger spent most of the thread about black history month calling me a racist. which I found kind of irritating to be honest.

beyelzu

I do not even conside antiamerican as an insult exactly. I consider it to be a statement of fact. I would like people that hate something to admit that they hate it and quit pretending otherwise. I also think that people who hate america in particular ignore alot of good. Thus I consider such a veiw to be ignorant.

I am not sure exactly what I as such a moron stand for. lets see shall we?

freedom of speech including flag burning- yes

patriotism -yes

separation of church and state -yes

freedom of religion- yes

antireligion- yes(I really dont like religion there are only a few that I think arent harmful, note Ido think that people should have the right to worship or not to as they see fit however.)

fiscal conservatism- yes

right to have firearms- yes

vonevilstein,

you believe the opposites on all of these issues, plus you are a theist? very interesting.

where do you get that I am anti-european??

that one I just dont understand.

abe smith

Wrong time of day, for me ,ULTRON; and I'm not too feat w/ the specifics. (I could look it up in Tribe's *American Constitutional Law*.) Meantime, I alarm Stephen Maturin here at EyeEye to explain to you, Person, the significance of that very-early-decision, *Marbury v. Madison*, the which (if I have got it correctly) DECIDED the issue, that the US Supreme Court does have the ultimate authority here in the USofA to say WHAT the Law is. You may not LIKE this fact , Ultron (Hey, your privilege!), but until that *stare decisis* is over-ridden (in which event I'm leaving this solar system), that's the way it works here.

********OH! for any of you adult US citizens who want to take some action to STOP BUSH , you can go to Website www.impeachbush. and signup w/ the rest of us. *******
I remember the Censure of Joseph McCarthy (who shrivelled-up and died not too long thereafter); Senator McCarthy had certain um, psychic traits in-common w/ the present CEO. (I cut my activist teeth carrying around my neighborhood a handmade petition "Censure McCarthy." Sheesh, that must've been in the early 1950s.)

And I remember the political movement to IMPEACH RM Nixon; which ended in RMN's resignation (He escaped UNPUNISHED, because of that dirty deal.) from the Presidency.
Sometimes processes DO work out "right".

*****A note of WARNING to residents/citizens of the USofA: *** Altho our NewZealand member the heroic LunaChick (Do I have this correct?) is FREE, there in her country , to talk of uh, um, therapeutic assassination(s) as a political remedy, anyone here in the USA who agrees w/ that opinion had better be damn careful about saying-so aloud/publickly. A case for FREE SPEECH was WON, at the time of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life (Was that John Hinckley? How quickly we forget!), when a woman office-worker said...... (You can look it up.), .... your airing a similar opinion NOW may get you into deeper shit than you care to undertake. Altho the matter is certainly NOT TRIVIAL! and vous auriez (sp?) legal raison.

MATURIN, ayudarme! Explain all this for the constituents, please.

Ultron

That's not debate Abe. Present an arguement not a website.