TheScout

Chug, what is the purpose of the royal perogative then? Why does it exist?

In 1707 Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. It is clearly part of the royal perogative. It can still be done. Modern monarchs simply have not guts to do what they think is right.

Not really . . . It would be against convention perhaps. The Queen certainly still holds the power to refuse assent, appoint the government, etc. She holds extensive powers. She just refuses to use them.

Shes protesting the anti-Catholic institution. The Queen could certainly come out and suppot a repeal of parts of the Act of Settlement, but of course she won't do that.

I don't think the point is that the monarch should not be a member of the Church of England since he/she is at its head. It is the fact that the succession laws are expressly anti-Catholic and do not discriminate against other religions.

"There isn't really much of a practical difference anyway, since having "delegated" some of their sovereignty, through a Constitution that has a Supremacy Clause, the states can't get that power back without the federal government's consent. This isn't what the supremacy clause means.

Or you could believe that the sovereignty belongs to the people of each state, who form the state governments, who delegate the powers to the federal government. One can think the US is the greatest country in the world and still think it has its flaws and can learn from other countries. I do. If not, which country is greater?

Perhaps you are in error. Maybe the states possess full sovereignty and through the Constitution delegate some of their sovereignty to the US through their insturment which is the federal government.

"Our "federal" system is based on "divided" sovereignty with the federal government being "supreme" in the areas prescribed in the Constitution and the states being supreme in the other areas. Of course, the dividing line is subject to interpretation, and differing interpretations over time. But the basic concept is one of divided sovereignty, so "sovereign nation of many sovereign states" is basically accurate as far as it goes." If the definition of a sovereign is the ultimate political authority, it can not be divided. There can only be one ultimate, powers can be delegated from one body to another, but sovereignty can not be divided.

The sovereign nation of many sovereign states part makes no sense. Sovereignty is usually defined as the supreme political authority. How can there be two supremes?

Commissioned officers take an oath to defend the "constitution of the United States," not the United States. The South believed the federal governement violated the contract so it no longer applied.

The scout, so he knows what he has to finish and can be responsible for his advancement.

Business took me by Fairview, KY yesterday. Had to stop and see the Jefferson Davis monument erected on his birthplace. Its an obelisk, the second tallest in the United States after Gen. Washingtons. Very out of place in a tiny rural Kentucky town of 900 people.

I don't think Barrack Obama is like Jesus. I still don't know what a community organizer is and nobody will tell me.

This should not even be a national political issue. The Supreme Court had no right to rule on abortion the penumbra of privacy was something made up. Look for it in the Constitution. It's not there. This should be a state issue like it was before Roe v. Wade. That way the people of each state can make laws through their elected legislators according to the traditions, values, and history of the state. The liberals of California can make it legal, and the conservatives of Wyoming can outlaw it. This country was supposed to be a federal one, with the vast majority of issues being decided at local levels closer to the people. That is most conducive to liberty.

I think a lot of people don't know what a community organizer actually is. I don't. Seriously. From the wikipedia article I still don't really get what they do all day, and who pays them, etc.

If you are so smart can you please tell me what a community organizer is? Thank you.

Yes I read it. I really don't get it though. Sorry. What does a community organizer do for 8 hours a day (or whatever their workday is)? Who pays them? I honestly do not know.

From the wikipedia article cited on community organizing: "Community organizing is a process by which people are brought together to act in common self-interest. While organizing describes any activity involving people interacting with one another in a formal manner, much community organizing is in the pursuit of a common agenda. Many groups seek populist goals and the ideal of participatory democracy. Community organizers create social movements by building a base of concerned people, mobilizing these community members to act, and developing leadership from and relationships among the people involved." I still don't really know what that means. If I was a community organizer, what would I do? Do I have an office and a telephone? Who pays me? What do I do all day? I realy don't get it.

I still want to know what a community organizer is.

No. I admitted I made a generalizaton. In converstation must people do not research every single thing they say. This is acceptable for statements that are not controversial. I did not think that anyone would seriously contest that primacy of private initiative compared to government dictate, but I suppose I am wrong. Am I?

To me, it is simply an article of faith in the American dream that private is better than public. Do you not agree?

To tell you the truth I am too lazy and do not care enough about the subject to do any actual research. People often speak in generalizations for topics that are not very controversial. I thought the fact that people were getting healthier for many years before government aid was quite obvious. I also thought that most people, especially in America, would concur that private work is superior to that of government when it comes to research. Do you honestly believe that I am wrong? You private medical work did not improve the human condition until the last century when government stepped it? Or that government directed research is superior?

I agree. That might be the worst statement by a politician I have ever heard. I am a conception person, but I would respect the man if he came out and said what he really thinks, even if it is rights are received at birth.

Then I read that wrong. I thought you were implying we should bail out farmers. I wouldn't bail out anyone. '"We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway." It depends but 'we' don't ALL know this. Where are your data? What are your measures of efficiency? How are they calculated? What research is it that you think is totally and completely private? What years were they in which we 'seemed' to get along well without government research? You said there were many years. How many? ' Life expectancy has been rising in the Western world for a long time before the government was involved in medical research. Are you seriously trying to say that private action is not better than public in the way of research?