Re: First Amendment as quoted on this page

More | Report Post

My friend all you say is way we have been taught about America. Majority
Rules. This is true in a democracy but We do not have a democracy and never
did. We live in a Republic. The difference is in a Republic we elect
people to make decisions for us. They don't make popular decisions such as
Raising Taxes. So these people do what THEY think is best for us.

The America you refer to has been gone since 1803 in Mabry v Madison. Here
the Federal govenment said they are over the states. The states said no We
are all in a union or federation. The states are sovereign and can with
draw from the union at any time. They even got the original signors (very
old at this time) of the constitution to testify at the supreme court to say
this was the agreement at the signing of the Constitution ie states are
sovereign and can leave the union. It did not matter the Federal supreme
court said they are the only ones that can "interpret" the constitution and
these states MUST comply. As you know the states did try to break free
about 60 years later but by then the Federal gov was too strong. The
supreme court is not elected but they make the laws and tell us people what
are rights are and our OBligations (taxes). It this really a democracy
where 9 unelected men dictate to the country what their freedoms are? No!
Teh people should be telling the gov what our freedoms are. The people
should rule but we don't.

Ben Franklin said if the people disagree with the government policy they can
vote with their feet and leave the state to one that is more suited for
their opinions. That America Franklin lived in is no more because the Feds
have complete control. Franklin was right in one thing he said when he left
the Constitutional signing. He said "Well We have a country now but it will
not last"........

Res ispa Loquitur

On 12/13/06, v wrote:
> I understand what you are saying. No i'm not trying to interpret the
> constitution. The problem is, there are people in government that treat it
> as if it were an eqasion writen by Albert Einstine. With no definitive
> answer. So it needs to be analyised continually untill they have the final
> answer. When there is none. If any of us make a contract to buy a car, a
> house, or what ever the contract may be. Those contracts don't have to
> be "understood" Torn apart, analyised before the supreme court. They are
> understood period. I in my opion think they have to much power. Shouldn't
> meddel in our most importent document, and twist it around, that we may be
> offending someone with our laws. Simple! the majorety always ruled. Now we
> have to make exceptions? Laws are made and passed because that is what the
> majority of reasonable people want. I just wonder why if i can understand
> it, with my limited education. What's wrong with these highly educated
> individuals!??
>
>
> On 12/13/06, Res ispa Loquitur wrote:
>> My friend the Constitution does not tell us what our rights and freedoms
>> are but rather the Supreme Court. You are trying to interpret the
>> constitution literally and historicly. I wish this was the case. The
>> Bill of Rights only protect individuals from the Federal government not
>> the states. Further since the Civil war the "Incorporation doctrine" has
>> placed the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment
>> says right to have liberty. What does liberty mean Freedom? Free to
>> own land, free to marry.... Marry what anything? Right to marry same
>> sex or marry 5 women?? The Supreme court tells us what this Amendment
>> says. Currently our right is to marry the opposite sex or 1 woman. But
>> there is a current agenda of the homosexuals siad Scalia to push for
>> freedom to marry same sex but not 5 women. So then the Supreme Court is
>> was tells us what our rights are and it slides with the times.
>>
>> Final Answer
>> Res ispa Loquitur
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/06, v wrote:
>>> How bout the constitution dosen't
>>> give us our rights. The bill of
>>> rights says what our rights are??
>>> And as far as i know we only have
>>> one right we can use. The right to
>>> remain silent. Are you sure that's
>>> your final answer??
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/06, Res ispa Loquitur
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are for now this is my final
>>> answer. Unless I can think of
>>> another
>>>> legal theory to present :{
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/06, Bob R/CA wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/06, Res ispa Loquitur.
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember peope there is NO
>>> Freedom of speech! There is only
>>>>>> freedom of Political speech.
>>> All other speech can be and is
>>>>>> regulated or restricted.
>>> Anything that causes Immediate
>>> passion
>>>>>> hate or anger is banned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that your final answer? :o)