davidmcbeth
Banned
Are you planning more racist rants? Then yes they will end up in my sig line.
Have you called Amazon about their shoeshineboy product?
https://www.amazon.com/Shoeshineboy-Polisher-Cleaner-Leather-Product/dp/B00MHDKV0M
Are you planning more racist rants? Then yes they will end up in my sig line.
Have you called Amazon about their shoeshineboy product?
https://www.amazon.com/Shoeshineboy-Polisher-Cleaner-Leather-Product/dp/B00MHDKV0M
& the constitution and bill of Rights dont ask for or demand separation of the church and state.No.
The Founders were quite clear in this. Research the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/
http://thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers
Remember, official suppression of our right to speak freely (government tyranny) is blunted by our natural right to defend ourselves from government tyranny.
Amendment 9
Constrution of the Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Synopsis of Griswold v Connecticut:
A Fourteenth Amendment case brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Connecticut making contraceptive products illegal.
Holding:
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and ruled it unconstitutional, enabling all people 'getting bizzzay!' to purchase marital aids (in this case contraceptives) and have 'marital privacy'.
Legacy:
Although the decision in Griswold v Connecticut only addressed the privacy of married couples, it was later used to expand the principles beyond that particular decision.
Eisenstadt v. Baird extended its holding to unmarried couples, Roe v Wade decriminalized abortion and Lawrence v Texas made it legal for two people of the same sex to make whoopee with each other.
Thank You for what you wrote...Synopsis of Griswold v Connecticut:
A Fourteenth Amendment case brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Connecticut making contraceptive products illegal.
Holding:
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and ruled it unconstitutional, enabling all people 'getting bizzzay!' to purchase marital aids (in this case contraceptives) and have 'marital privacy'.
Legacy:
Although the decision in Griswold v Connecticut only addressed the privacy of married couples, it was later used to expand the principles beyond that particular decision.
Eisenstadt v. Baird extended its holding to unmarried couples, Roe v Wade decriminalized abortion and Lawrence v Texas made it legal for two people of the same sex to make whoopee with each other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_ConstitutionWhile the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary.[citation needed] The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.[citation needed Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism.
I would assume that you read all the justices opinions both concurring and dissenting,, therefore you will observe that the ninth amendment was mentioned and relied upon for this case..
In my humble opinion the 9th A protects all "individual liberty's.. For example, in Griswold the justices referenced the right to marry, the right of parents to educate their children, the natural right of privacy and the right to be left alone.. Keep in mind that the aforementioned rights were long established before the "bill of rights" ever existed... Hence the 9th amendment in my humble opinion " Trumps the "Bill of Rights"..
My .02
We can still think what we want, right?
This Amendment protects all rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.. The basic natural rights that the founders did not feel necessary to mention... Right to think, right to travel, right to be left alone, etc...
See Griswold v Connecticut.. and try thinking on your own!
imo the fed should clarify gun rights and allow the Citizen flexibility.
Really? Says who, particularly when The Wikipedia is indeed the source for his quoted material?
The Wikipedia is a fine first reference, particularly for a topic with which YOU are not familiar. The references and external citations are a fine study guide.
Agreed, while some articles on Wikipedia are subject to much editing back and forth it shouldn't be assumed prima facie to not be suitable for use as a source (so long as there are footnotes to reputable sources). I'll happily use Wikipedia's entry on Terry v Ohio for a concise summation of the case rather than forcing someone to read pages and pages of USSC records.
ummmmm
wiki doesn't count as a source.
Better to say, "I heard it through the Grapevine." --snicker----snipped--
it's basically like saying, "i heard it on facebook".
wow, you went down that garden path...whew!
ipse
Agreed, while some articles on Wikipedia are subject to much editing back and forth it shouldn't be assumed prima facie to not be suitable for use as a source (so long as there are footnotes to reputable sources). I'll happily use Wikipedia's entry on Terry v Ohio for a concise summation of the case rather than forcing someone to read pages and pages of USSC records.
Really? Says who, particularly when The Wikipedia is indeed the source for his quoted material?
The Wikipedia is a fine first reference, particularly for a topic with which YOU are not familiar. The references and external citations are a fine study guide.
Better to say, "I heard it through the Grapevine." --snicker--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hajBdDM2qdg
So when I ask wikipedia what the chemical composition of salt it, and it says "Common salt is a mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride (NaCl)" I'm supposed to roll my eyes and say, "As IF!"?says me.
the fact that joe shmo can edit it makes it unreliable.
you don't know "who" the author is. and unless you cross check all of the footnotes, you're setting yourself up.
it's basically like saying, "i heard it on facebook".