Next Terrorist Attack

[greg334]

Well, the Constitution doesn't grant us the right to vote for the president, but it does, specifically, grant us the right to vote for the members of the House of Representatives.

Yep my point.

The president and the senators are chosen by the states, in any manner in which they choose. The states determine voting times, places and procedures, but Congress can, at any time, change by law any of these except the places where Senators are chosen.

Nope, senators are not chosen by the states, that went out in the yearly part of the 20th century with the 17th amendment and stripped the states of their representation.

17th - The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

All the congress can do is redistrict areas and change the level of people required in each district according to the census. They can't abridged the state's rights on voting times, places or procedures, the constitution does that.

The 15th, 19th and 26th Amendment specifically address the right to vote.

Well sort of and not sort of, there is no implied meaning that we can vote in a presidential election or have the right to and all these amendment did was to address specific problems and base solely on the fact that it was only these problems that needed to be addressed.

15th - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

26th - The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Two separate issues here. One, yeah, the Constitution makes is very clear that the federal government can do only certain things, plus anything we allow it to do.

The other issue is, the Constitution most definitely grants us rights. The first ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, in fact.

Right on the first part to a point, we the people have to be involved with the process to allow the triggers of these limitations to to actually happen. without our involvement, we end up with what we have today.

Second part, I beg to differ with you.

The point of the constitution is not to grant rights, it has nothing in it about granting anything to us, it is clear that the rights are there for us period and not to be taken or inhibited. Th idea that we are not granted anything from the government goes back to Jefferson and his position that God gives us the rights not King or country. This all sort of goes back to Mason, the English bill of rights and even to the Magna Carta, among a lot of others that Jefferson and others derived their ideas from.

Also the bill of rights was omitted from the original draft of the constitution because many thought it would be unnecessary to put into the document what was perceived as a given, read about it in no. 98 of the federalist papers. Madison prevailed with his point and they got added in.

There has been a lot of discussion about the constitution being a living document but it is not, it is a very static document. The thing is that once we think that we are granted rights, then we can lose those rights.

[Pilgrim]

This trend started with decisions made by the Kennedy administration to quit locking up individuals that were deemed to be mentally unstable - this confinement violated their civil rights. The rights of the general public didn't matter, so now we see bums living under bridges,using the city streets as a toilet, pushing around their junk in stolen grocery carts and talking to themselves. We're supposed to feel compassion for them because they're "victims" so we now call them "homeless". If we felt true compassion to them and true responsibility to our society we would confine them to a place where trained professionals could take care of them.

Why that preamble? Because these are also the types of people, young and older, that are shooting up our classrooms. The nutty kid at Va. Tech had a long history of mental problems and state officials new about it, but their hands were tied because of privacy laws. Supposedly, even his parents couldn't find out about health issues discovered at school because of these privacy laws - for that matter they can't even find out his grades even if they're paying his tuition. Bottom line is, these people that are deemed to possibly be a threat to society need to be evaluated and confined to treatment if necessary. Take away their guns? Fine, if somebody can wave a magic wand and make all guns everywhere disappear. Then they'll invent another weapon - bombs are relatively easy to make and the recipie can be easily found on the internet. Why go on, ad nauseum about the possibilities when mental health issues and the way we deal with them is the core of the problem?

Re the 2d amendment - the reality of it is simple. It's clear in its meaning, and it's not going away, for good reason. Given the liberal mindset of so many judges, criminals are more likely to be put out on the street than in jail. Every day you can read an article in most any paper about home invasions where the inhabitants were beaten, raped and robbed. The chances of this happening at my house are far less than those of a household that depends on locked doors and 911 emergency to save them from the bad guys.