IntenseDebate - 4Constitution

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 0 replies · +1 points

Without in any way detracting from your service or the sacrifice of your family (hopefully), I will merely point out (once again) that your first two requirements contradict your third requirement and Article VI, section 3 of the very Constitution you wish to protect and that many of the other powers you wish to restrict are specifically granted to Congress in that same Constitution.

As for the other suggestion regarding House representation, reducing the number of Reps will REDUCE and not increase the degree to which the House is responsive to public opinion. Shorter terms or INCREASING representation (more voters per reps) are both a more appropriate solution to the problem Ron seeks to address.

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 2 replies · +1 points

uhh, it has been published and authenticated by the appropriate state authorities.

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 3 replies · -2 points

Those requirements depend on how much you respect and value our Constitution.

I am sure you are familiar with the 1st Amendment's protection of religious freedom and so will not reiterate it here.

I will however point your attention to Article VI clause 3, which states:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "

The purpose of this clause is to allow citizens to choose their own representatives WITHOUT REGARD TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION and to provide individuals OF ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS with the freedom to seek their redress of grievances by seeking public office.

So I guess your dilemma is whether you support our constitution or not.

And by the way, many of your other "requirements" are either permitted by the Constitution or directly violate it. But what the hell, "let's just throw the darn thing away " is apparently your preferred solution.

I'll go back to my lurking, now.

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, they can. All it requires is for the House to levy charges and the Senate uphold an impeachment order. Both Houses of Congress can also expel a member without impeachment, but it is rarely (if ever) done.

The more likely mode of altering the makeup of Congress is through the electoral process during which, of course, the will of the people is exercised.

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 0 replies · 0 points

This weeks election results would indicate to the contrary, but I like you style!

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 2 replies · +1 points

No I don't. Being a part of democracy means that I don't always get my way. It it also means that I maintain the right to assert my demands so that I MIGHT get my way.

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 0 replies · +1 points

Arguments by Madison and Jefferson for the separation of church and state:

The first two were proposals to the state of Virginia, but reflect thinking on the same issue at the national level in the years following the constitutional debates. The last is Madison's explanation of how/why our government was supposed to work.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/m...

http://www.constitution.org/bor/vir_bor.htm

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Just a starting point

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 0 replies · +1 points

History is history. We can either understand it as it occurred or distort it to serve our own needs. I do the former. Dr. Stanley does the latter. The historical record is clear on that point. The only question is whether or not people choose to see it as it happens or to wrap themselves up in their own misconceptions.

I would like to reiterate that while some of the evidence Dr. Stanley offered is somewhat correct, it is his conclusions (based on selective data gathering and incorrect inferences) that are wrong.

In short, the agreement among our Founding Fathers was that religion should be protected from government intrusion and that government should not be used to impose religion on others.

History is what occurred; fiction is what Dr. Stanley invents!

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 1 reply · 0 points

An American military officer with a mental illness is terrorism?

14 years ago @ 912 Communique - Vent · 2 replies · 0 points

Obviously all this dispute within the House, within the Senate, between both and between the President and Congress indicates that (a) the President isn't the "final decider"; and (b) our Constitution is working as intended.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with 4Constitution

People I'm following

4Constitution