TheScout

You seem a little harsh on your views of the Catholic Church. No organization is perfect. The US, the BSA, and their leaders are flawed as well. I would argue however that throughout history perhaps no organization has done more good for more people than the Catholic Church.

The people don't have a right to make rules for their society, interesting. Where do these government powers come from then? "Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away?" Yes. You have missed a fundamental distinction of my argument. There is a great differcnce in what: 1. What a state is constitutionally authorized to do under our system, and 2. What rights are inalienable and endowed to us by God Example. For abortion. I think a state has a right to allow abortion in all cases. I also believe however that this violation of an in

"Legislation isn't a right" So you are saying the people do not have a right to make rules for their society. I think we both agree rights can not be taken away. So who then takes away the right of a society to create rules to govern itself? Hypothetical question then. If any state, say Montana for instance holds a referendum on whether to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted to schools, and 100% of the people vote yes, should that not be allowed. That seems an awful horrible intrusion of the central government if that is struck down. I still wonder? What is school of consti

Rights can conflict. We all know that. I find it interesting that while I place a higher standing on the right of the people to legislate, you place a higher standing in the whims of one individual. I do not think it is a question of either of us not believing in either of the "rights" or whatever you wish to call them. It just seems to be a question of which should properly and constitutionally should take precedence. Arguments like this reveal many different things. It reveals differing morals and views of government. Good people can strongly disagree on what seems to be mundane questi

There is an advancemment committee manual available from your local council. It has all the answers you need for advancements.

To return to a more realistic topic instead of slavery, lets use putting the 10 Commndments in courthouses for instance. You dislike the fact that in some jurisdictions people may choose through their elected representatives to put the Commandments up in courthouses. I think it is the right of the people to do so if they wish. You seem to think there is some sort of natural right that is being violated by seeing there. I do not. Personally I think a local government should be able to decide either way if it wishes. You don't. I support local self determination. Other question

Merlyn, good thing that you think the most important thing a constitution does is limit the people's legislative powers.

Merlyn, you forget my friend that legislatures are the purest form of the people's will. Packsaddle, I will oblige. Though I do not favor the curtailment of freedoms. (I consider myself quite a liberatarian, I dislike the Patriot Act) To me it is a question of states rights. Whether a state has the right to limit the freedoms if it wishes. Not really because I think it should, but because I think that it is just one symptom of how our states our losing their powers and becoming mere administrative agents of Washington. Again, I do not endorese one half of the population ensla

Packsaddle, I must write that I do not think I am an advocate of subordinating individual rights to the government. I am simply writing of the right of certain governments to do such things. Not the propriety of it.

Merlyn, I wonder what your school of constitutional interpretation is? You always seemed like a living document type. Now you seem to be quite a literalist when it suits you. Also, you have yet to answer my two questions? How do we know when majority rule applies and when it doesn't? And, do you trust the American people to make wise decisions in legislatures through their elected representatives?

Gee, I am sorry you have to teach foolish me about the constitution. Madison et al. refered to states rights many times, though not in the document itself. I think they exist. Everyone in the first 75 years of this country knew they existed. Where did they go? It is a shame you think incorporation should go farther. You should get back to reality. OldGreyEagle, you make good points about the Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure the army which freed us from the Great Britain did not also create a federal republic. I think the Congress created the Articles of Confederation then the Convention created the Constitution through democratic means. At least we can agree that republics can hold slaves. All people do not have to have the same rights to have republican government. Also a sham that you believe in majority rule only in certain circumstances. So I ask again, how do we know when this does not apply? Is that only under circumstances you agree with? Does majority rule not apply when we tal

Our limited federal republic was created by force? I seem to recall the Constitutional Convention and several state ratifying conventions in which democratically elected representatives framed our form of government. It seems that you do not favor majority rule? Or is that only under circumstances you agree with? Does majority rule not apply when we talk of some peoples rights? Who decides when and where majority rule applies? It is good you know enough to tell us when majority rule applies. You write of the antebellum Southern states, "They had the power to institute slavery ba

It is a shame that you don't believe in democracy. How else did we create our "limited federal republic". It seems to me that the constitutions were drawn in a democratic fashion. Were the constitutions of the antebellum Southern states not republican though they included slavery? A republic can hold slaves. There have been many throughout history. Your comparison of Colorado gays and African slaves is moot. The gays were citizens and entitled to the protections of them. The slaves were not. I guess we can then agree that some places with state religions are fair and decent places,

Also, just for the record. I did not say I support slavery of the hanging of Quakers. Merely the right of a people of a state through the democratic process to decide that they do.

"Earlier, you indicated that states should have the right to have slavery; so how does 51% voting to enslave the other 49% preserve the rights of those 49%?" Well thats democracy, isn't it? Each state could spell out its provisions for slavery in the state constitution, made by the people of each state, not in a one size fits all national decree. Or do you just believe in democracy when it comes with results you like? You know that in the United States such a case never came up. Instead slaves were only African slaves and their descendants, clearly not members of the politcal communi

Merlyn, you write, "Because rights can't be infringed; saying that a state has "rights" implies that the state has some power that cannot be restricted or removed. Under the constitution, states only have powers granted to it, which implies that any of them may be removed. I much prefer the power of states always being subject to the will of the people." Obviouisly all agree that the perogatives of any government come from the people. The state is merely a manifestation of the people. The right of the state comes into play when people try to deny the people of the state the power to

Merlyn, First I have a question for you. What is your problem with the idea that states have rights? The easiest one to prove is he equal represntation in the Senate. The federal constitution clearly grants each state equal suffrage. That is a right that each state has. Just because the constitution doesn't call it a right doesn't mean it is not so. That is, with all do respect, the worst argument I have ever heard. You know, the 4th Amendment does not include the word 'right' either. Does that mean its guarentees are not rights? I would also venture to say that Denmark and Nor

Plenty of poor people get off of crimes easy as well. You just don't here about that it the news and people don't whine about it.

Merlyn, states don't have rights? Please. What about the 10th Amendment? "The poweres 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." Seems like the States have the right to exercise quite a few powers there. This would include the right to make a police force. The right to create parts. The right to creat local government. Need I go on? They also have rights stemming from the federal constitution. The right to appoint presidential electors. The right to equal representation

It is the Supreme Court's doctrine, because they just made it up! They engineered a coup in the wake of the vagueness of the amendment designed to protect the rights of negros to seize the rights of states and massively expand the federal power in a way never intened by the the authors of the 14th Amendment. Incorporation is arguably one of the worst examples of judical activism. Why should a state not have the power to have a religion if it wished? As you mention, for many years several states did so. They turned out fine. Its actually a principle called self-determination, that people

Merlyn, If the 14th Amendment meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights, why didn't it say so? "Privleges and Immuniites" is a rather vague term. If that was the intent, it could have been much better worded. Could it not apply simply to the Privleges and Immunities Clause of the original Constitution. Recall the first case interpreting it, Slaughterhouse gave a thrashing to your incorporation doctrine.

Beavah, God bless your good intentions, but for once I must agree with Merlyn. Though a scout should be courteous, kind, and patient, he must also stick up for his beliefs. And stick up for them tooth and nail if need be. If you believe in your heart that something is right, there can be no other way.

I don't recall any successful attacks on America or American interests since September 11, 2001.

An Islamic traditon holds that there are 99 names for God, each invoking a characteristic that He has.