Slashdot Mirror
Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on Constitution
Wilder Publication is under fire for putting warning labels on copies of historical US documents, including the Constitution. The label warns "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today." From the article: "The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they 'might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.'"
Damned right, if it was written today no one would be able to read it without paying some exorbitant price, and you better not expect to share the document with anyone else!
Warning, this constitution is of its time, its views might not reflect the actions of those sworn to protect it and uphold it or the courts sworn to interpret it correctly.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In before the trolls!
*reads article*
Oh...
I think the Bible would be a better book to slap that kind of a warning on.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's morons like this that give the morons I hate on the right ammunition.
----- obSig
That's probably the most blatant example of overzealous PC CYA I've ever seen. Maybe it's a mistake? That's just bizarre.
I'm mystified. Why is somebody unhappy about having advice to take historical context in mind when reading the constitution, which in its original doesn't reflect (for example) voting rights for women and former slaves?
What a failed troll...since both of those were fixed with Amendments. That's how it's done, you know...
This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" because otherwise that leaves things into interpretation and prevents people from forming their own opinion.
The constitution wasn't written with symbolism and to make it be hard to read. No. The constitution and other works of that time period dealing with politics were made for the every day voter and the vocabulary, though slightly archaic is a whole lot easier than that of, say, Shakespeare and lacks the annoying, long, wordiness of later authors like Dickens making it very accessible.
What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
What's amusing about the flap is that I'd be willing to bet that at least some, if not many, of the people upset by this have no problem at all with warning labels on biology textbooks.
The warning itself says "Copyright 2007". Why is FoxNews complaining about this now, 3 years later? I'm sure they'll try to blame this on Obama, the people who support him, and their 'attack on America' somehow.
And why is Slashdot acting as a frontman for FoxNews?
The US Constitution itself is a politically correct document. Look how it dances around the issue of slavery: "Person held to Service or Labour" and "three fifths of all other Persons" are the really egregious ones. Everyone knew who these "other Persons" were, but nobody wanted to say it. It wasn't until 1865, almost 80 years later, that the word "slavery" appeared in the 13th amendment, when it was safely in the past tense -- and then in 1870, when the mealy-mouthed Southern gentry, who had been willing to fight a war on behalf of slavery but could never talk about it when Yankees were about, were back in Congress, the 15th gently whispers about "previous condition of servitude."
So for those who think PC is some new an unique blight on our language, sorry, it's pretty much part of our national DNA.
There are other instances which still cause trouble today. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that it's illegal for the government to give money to churches just as much as "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that it's illegal for for the government to ban them. And "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is explanatory, not prescriptive; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that has the force of law, and all they really needed to write. But there's been enough wiggle room in the phrasing for the enemies of liberty to exploit for the last 220+ years.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
WARNING: This book is fiction, any relationship to people living or dead is purely co-incidintal?
Hate to break up of the controversy with facts, but this disclaimer is just boilerplate the distributor puts on all of his products. He publishes lots of public domain works and he got sick an tired of people complaining about the language or mores.
You can get the full story on his blog: http://warrenlapine.livejournal.com/
I've known Warren for years. If he had been trying to make a point, he would flat out say that was what he was doing.
I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
``This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.'' Uh, yeah.
The "disclaimer" is not only mere boilerplate for all their historical documents, but a value neutral and true observation. The trolling comes from pure speculation.
And it gets better: `By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence.'' Right. I seem to recall W saying that it was just a "goddam piece of paper." Nothing controversial there.
The fact that we've already amended the Constitution 27 times suggests fairly strongly that the disclaimer is true as stated.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
terminology changes. There just trying to get people to think realize that.
An example I use is from H.G> Wells War of the Worlds:
"His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating. "
It involves some papers that will use terms to have a different meaning at the time or context.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So there's nobody who can tell them "you're not allowed to do this".
So was income tax, but I've heard quite a few Tea Party folks claiming it's unconstitutional.
Because it's still perfectly acceptable to consider a black person as only 3/5 of a person, and it's perfectly acceptable to refer to native Americans as 'savages' (as in the Declaration of Independence).
The US constitution does say something about slaves being 3/5 people (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not an American). Having said that, it looks like a boilerplate warning that that the publisher would attach to reprinted historical documents that some people might find offensive and that might require a bit of historical context to fully understand. And who's linking to Fox for this story? Is anyone other than Fox and Conservapedia upset?
Any production of the Constitution should have warning labels all over it. Almost every detail of government, technology, and daily life has changed since it was written. Two hugely important entities that didn't exist at the time: our all-or-nothing 2-party nonsense, and Corporations (big C).
Literal interpretations and "government can only do what is written here" is nonsense. For instance: the constitution does not give the Congress the right to establish a national Air Force. Because of the 10th amendment, each state should have sovereignty over issues not directly stated by the constitution, each state should logically have its own Air Force. Infallibility of 200+ year-old documents is BS.
My other sig is clever.
I'm guessing they put this on every "classic" work of literature they publish. You know, the ones busybodies are always trying to censor for the bad words, but really because they portray slavery and racism realistically.
Exactly his point. The teabaggers think the constitution is not a living document. Even though anyone actually reading it's history and the federalist papers knows for a fact is WAS designed as a living document.
Most of these idiots also think the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. Idiots and morons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Warning: This book may contain facts that are incompatible with the superstitious fairy tales that your parents ignorantly used to scare you into being a good boy.
From TFA:
"Any idea that's 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,"
Any idea no matter where/when/who it comes from will certainly offend someone or other.
These warnings were probably a reactionary measure taken after angry parents called in asking why they publish Huckleberry Finn when it has so many instances of the N word in it. A disclaimer isn't going to satisfy these people. We, as a society, should instead simply buckle down and accept that some people say/said things we don't like.
Stuff that matters?
I think the title describes the only warning the Constitution requires.
In Liberty, Rene
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Para. 3)
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I would direct you to the 1st Amendment and kindly request that you not ask others to STFU ;)
Comment'); DROP TABLE Comments; --I wonder if you sanitize your inputs on comments?
AccountKiller
No one actually reads the Constitution anyway. They just tell you what it says.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
The problem with interpretation is that it's subjective and changes over time. Also, human language is vague.
When you hear people claim they're for strict interpretation, that's a somewhat dishonest shorthand for favoring someone who reads the constitution to suit their specific needs and prejudices.
You must be joking? Why are we now linking to a Fox new site?
Regardless, if this book was intended for children then it absolutely makes sense to have a warning label. If you cannot understand why then I would suggest that you brush up on your history. I'm not even referring exclusively to slave era history. Have a look at the filth that was published during McCarthyism's reign. Simply because the Constitution happens to be nested within the same book does not mean that ideals of justice, liberty, etc. are being claimed to be relics from a bygone era. It means that the dehumanization of non-European peoples, subservience of women, etc. are notions to be found within the documents contained in this book. They are cautioning the parent of this and advising them that they should discuss this with their children.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Oh, come on mods. . . that was funny.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Exactly his point. The teabaggers
OK, stop there. You know damn well they're not called the "teabaggers". What is up with people calling them that? Are they trying to be funny? trying to sound smart? Grow the fuck up.
The difference is that the Constitution is one of the principle defining documents of this country (there is obvious proof it exists), and a biology textbook is usually what the author(s) believe to be true in a particular field of research. I don't see how they compare.
The warning label seems oddly appropriate to me.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
And I'll take this opportunity to really piss some people off by mentioning the fact that the Electoral College was part of the same slavery compromise. Between the 3/5ths counting of slaves in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College there was a carefully counted balance reached for pro-slavery power and for pro-slavery votes.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.
Women's votes not important to you then? They had to wait for the 19th to guarantee that!
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
I would direct you to the 1st Amendment which grants the GP the right to kindly ask others to STFU and gives you the right to kindly request that the GP not ask others to STFU ;)
Slashdot is a product of its time and may not reflect the opinions of the modders who read your posts ten seconds from the moment they were written.
Yes, and anyone who read the Federalist Papers would also understand that the general welfare clause was not in itself a grant of power to the federal government, but rather discussing why the federal government was granted the powers it was given.
Likewise, many writings by the Founders, as well as definitions of the time, suggest that the commerce clause would not apply the manufacture of goods, but rather the exchange or transport of goods.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
HAHAHA! It's funny cuz it's true!
If one thinks it odd that this article is tagged "commonsense", remember that one of the documents in this collection is that historic pamphlet of the American Revolution.
Thank you, diligent taggers </sarcasm>.
sigfault (core dumped)
I would direct you to the second amendment, which says if you all don't STFU, something bad is gonna happen.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
or put another way, i don't hold the idiotic statements of some members of the left against the left's valid arguments. e.g. those claiming that the healthcare bill wasn't a giant gift to the very corporations that the left blame (and to a large extent justifiably) for the problems in our system. the honest people on the left acknowledge that the Democrat party got subverted by the very special interests Obama claimed he would not allow to dictate policy when he was campaigning.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
They're obviously just trying to get into the Texas school book market.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
To oversimplify, there are two senses of so-called "Living Document."
The conservative view: it is a living document in the sense that as times change, it can be changed by amendment. The rules aren't set in stone; we just have to sit down and carefully think out what we want, make sure it is what we want, vote on it, and make the necessary changes.
The liberal view: it is a living document in that it says whatever we want it to say, whenever we want it to say it. If it doesn't say what we want it to say, well, then that part is 'old and outdated' or 'doesn't reflect the times' and we can ignore it.
The first view makes change slowly; there is no instant gratification. We have a damn hard constitution to change compared to other nations -- Ireland, for example, requires only a simple majority vote, 50.1% -- but it serves to protect somewhat against passing fads and the very real tyranny of the majority. (It doesn't always work, e.g., prohibition, but it works most of the time.) It also means that injustice can take time to be eliminated. Finally, there are definitely gaps in the Constitution; ours is one of the briefest written. It's a version 1.1 Constitution (1.0 being the Magna Carta in Western society), where other nations have had 200 years to see what works and what doesn't. The 9th & 10th amendment reserve those 'gaps' to the states & people. If there's been no legislation there, it should be legal conduct. Conversely, one does well to remember that the ambit of 'health, welfare, and police power' is quite a area in which the states can act.
The second view though is just downright dangerous. It basically throws the rule of law right out the window. It isn't about saying "Man means man, woman, and child" in the Constitution, it's about saying entire sections are contrary to their plain language. Jurisprudence took a major nosedive in The New Deal and hasn't recovered since. For an example of a Living Constitution, read George Orwell's Animal Farm
Ultimately, for me, I trust a Justice like Hugo Black to do his job -- even if he is more extreme than my views -- more than I do someone like Justice John Paul Stevens, who plays fast and loose with the Constitution at times.
Final thoughts... We are not a homogeneous people by any means. We're probably the most diverse populace on earth in terms of ethnicity, culture, values, etc. Does it make any sense at all that the exact same principles should apply to everyone? Only in the most basic sense, to guarantee our rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Californians are not Texans are not Alaskans are not New Yorkers. Each state has laws to fit its populace and the Constitution should not be bent willy-nilly to try to make them the same. If we wanted the exact same, we'd change the laws ourselves.
(Also, please don't get into the trap of arguing, "Oh woe is me, politicians are corrupt, the government is corrupt, I shall never get my way!" That's just plain horse shit. That's the same people who either vote and bitch that the system is broken because they lose, or worse, don't vote "because my vote doesn't matter" and then continue to bitch anyway. If you've got a better system, let's hear it -- it still beats everything else out there.)
Actually, they were the ones that said they were going to teabag this and teabag that.
I program computers, I am a programmer. They teabag the white house (their words), they are teabaggers.
This particular publisher puts this warning on all their books, according to the comments on digg. Sorry I don't have better sources, but apparently this publisher is a small publisher that publishes a lot of historical works. This is there standard legal disclaimer. So basically this is an over reaction.
More precisely, the claim is that it was never fulled ratified and therefore not an amendment. And that even if it was, income was defined as having to do with financial investments and therefore the law can make no claim against wages (i.e. the money exchanged for your labor). It's become inverted over time with wages now being taxed at a higher percentage than the gambling income on Wall Street.
Most biology textbooks contain what the authors noted was the overwhelming consensus of biologists.
Nobody puts anything controversial (*actually* controversial -- things that are overwhelmingly accepted scientific consensus but that still piss off the Baptists do not qualify), without clearly labelling it as such, in a mainstream elementary biology book.
That's a claim, not the claim. You can easily find people who will assert that it's flat-out unconstitutional to have an income tax and completely ignore the amendment.
Most of these idiots also think the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. Idiots and morons.
I'm curious to see what evidence you have that it wasn't written by people who knew Jesus. If you'd prefer to avoid a religion-fueled flamewar, feel free to send an e-mail. I won't even reply to it (unless you want me to), I'm just interested in your evidence ;)
They called themselves teabaggers. It was months later that they tried to rewrite history because it inconveniently exposed them for the morons they are.
Time to jump on the slippery slope:
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeee...................thud
If you actually check out the link for the publisher they're mostly reprinting old "positive thinking" stuff. I smell publicity stunt. Then again, it could just be a debunked, false issue.
. . . it would be copyrighted. It would have a warning, "All Rights Reserved." Think about it.
Try this:
A well regulated bakery being necessary to the tastiness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear pastries, shall not be infringed.
Ok, please explain the previous sentence to me. Make me understand how pastries could ever be legally banned if the sentence in italics above was an amendment to the Constitution.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
The right to keep and bare arms was specifically there to protect we the people from the government. If the government has nukes, we should have nukes to protect ourselves from them.
I know, 220 million people having nukes doesn't seem like that good of an idea, which is why I maintain that nobody INCLUDING the government should have nukes....
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
No, it's not a 'standard disclaimer.' If you RTFA the legal beagles say this gives the company no particular advantage. This is a small publisher, probably publish on demand, that sells exclusively through amazon. Their only contact is a P.O. box.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Might actually be a good thing to put some intelligent warnings on other books, like things about the paranormal, pseudo sciences, etc. I know I could have used a short lesson on critical thinking in my teens. I read this crap rabidly and hoped it was all real. I didn't learn critical thinking until much later.
The constitution is absolutely a living document. and the way to make edits is: Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal.
Before calling people idiots and morons perhaps you should take a basic civics class to learn a little bit about what the fuck you're talking about. You're the one that sounds like an ignorant moron at this point.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Conservative sensationalism at its finest! This is a boiler-plate disclaimer that the publisher automatically attaches to its publications, probably to appease their legal staff. At no point in the article does Fox News actually cite a legitimate source of protest, other than Amazon.com customer reviews. "Under fire" !? Only by Fox News and the far-right zombies that blindly peddle Fox News' stories and swallow them as fact. This is poorly written drivel based on the insignificant ramblings of Internet nobodies like us. I hope the /. crowd has enough sense to read this article carefully and take note of its illegitimacy and its role as right-wing propaganda.
I'm not an expert, but I play one on slashdot.
In fact the very founding of the nation was over tax laws, so pretending like the Teabaggers are crazy on this is really unfair and inaccurate.
Income tax is absolutely at the root of what has gone wrong in our democracy. That and unmitigated corporate monopolization. But then I guess "Joe's Coffee"has every bit the chance of success as "Starbucks" where you live.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Touche. However, I am not the government so I can ask you to STFU without infringing on your rights.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Wait, doesn't the 2nd amendment let you guys carry arms... but it doesn't say that you can discharge them....
umm... the "conservatives" played plenty fast and loose with the constitution over the past decade. See for reference the Bush administration, specifically John Yoo's memos "justifying" torture, denial of Habeas, warantless domestic wiretapping, etc.
Oh, you meant the paleo-conservatives. my bad. but no one listens to them anymore.
so to recap:
the left thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
the right thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Where have all the mod points gone?
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
Repealing that amendment would only make income due to property (rent, etc) necessary to be apportioned among the states based on population.
Income Tax from employment is based on an event... a transfer of property/cash from an employer to an employee.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Well, bibles need those warning labels also, i would think.
Or just need to put it under fantasy/science fiction.
Be seeing you...
I think you might want to do some quick googling for your information. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would say that the books of the bible were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone friends of his.
There are literally hundreds of theses written by DD candidates on this subject.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I believe the origin was a Tea Party follower with a sign reading "TEA BAG the LIBERAL DEMS BEFORE THEY TEA BAG YOU !!" At least that's the first instance I encountered associating "tea bag" (as a verb) with the movement. In other words, they brought it on themselves, to some extent.
http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party (2009-02-27)
That said, the joke should have died right there, after one good laugh at their expense. I do cringe when the term "teabagger" is used now, over a year later.
That was stupid from the get-go.
There was no limitation set forth in either of the founding documents regarding which sexes could and could not vote. As such, the feds had no right to restrict it...ever. It shouldn't have been an amendment. It should have an a SCotUS ruling that such restrictions were unconstitutional.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi
care to poison the well some more?
you're half right. but without the 16th amendment the progressive income tax would be impossible. which is the only reason the left likes it in the first place. how about trying a progressive sales tax?
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
I'd say given the shift towards corporatocracy, the major "loopholes" are that
The intent of the original constitution has been perverted by money (and the homonculi that it spawns - corporations).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Article 9 ...
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This does not apply to income tax (beyond income from property).
The 16th amendment is not necessary for a progressive income tax.
Congress already had limitless ability to lay and collect taxes that were not direct, and only three taxes are known to be direct (in so far as the US constitutional law definition is concerned): Capitation, Property Tax, and Income Tax from Property.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would say that the books of the bible were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone friends of his.
Hard pressed? I can think of half a dozen biblical scholars off the top of my head that I have met personally who are quite certain the Bible was written by people who were friends of Jesus.
At any rate, do you have any suggested search terms? The ones I've tried so far lead to articles questioning the existence of Jesus himself; while that would indirectly prove that the Bible authors could not have known Jesus, there is plenty of secular evidence that Jesus did exist, so I'd prefer to see this supposed evidence that the Bible authors themselves could not have known Jesus.
Perhaps I should clarify: I know some of the books of the Bible specifically were not written by men who knew Jesus before his death and resurrection, but the Bible itself is clear about that.
I'm interested, specifically, in evidence that Matthew and Mark, who were (according to the Bible) two of the twelve disciples that followed Jesus around during his life, were not actually personally acquainted Jesus.
(Yes, it was funny.)
There are many ways in which tax resisters claim this, one of which was that the amendment was improperly ratified, another that it may have legalized the income tax but didn't legalize any plausible method of enforcement. They aren't ignorant of the fact that there's an amendment establishing it.
......that so many Slashdotters should cry foul at the suggestion of actually discussing the Constitution and it's meaning with your children. Isn't that kind of a good thing?
Nice try at what? Making the point that the original constitution contained elements that are untenable by today's standards? Perhaps he wasn't *perfectly* accurate, but his basic point still stands...some people could be considered 3/5 of a person and they didn't have full rights. Or do you consider slavery okay if ALL races are enslaved equally?
What's the phrase...nice try though.
And I don't think you could get away with defining non free persons to be worth 3/5ths as much as free people today.
Even though we repealed that part with the 14th Amendment.
Wrong.
It did not include indentured servants, quite explicitly. The intention and reality of the 3/5 compromise was applied overwhelmingly to blacks.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
... might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work
Before allowing them to read the Constitution? Really?
No, the problem is that "living document" means something -other- than that. It refers not to altering the constitution but reinterpreting the constitution for current times.
but... The summary says... "for putting warning labels on copies of historical US documents, including the Constitution. "
Doesn't that mean this document will have a lot of historical documents written in it. There is a lot of language that is not PC today, the label probably isn't even meant for the constitution, but for slavery laws, gender bias, and race bias.... A lot of the nasty things that we are not to proud of in our history.
Even the Constitution has part in it that we no longer handle slaves are counted a 1/3 for districting.... Crazy stuff like that. I say it is a fair warning.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Which is fine until different pieces of a "good" started being manufactured in different states.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's exactly what I said. Why are you calling me ignorant and a moron?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's what they call themselves. I'm not making that up. I watched them use that term to discribe themselve abd 4 times in on conversation.
I tried to explain why it was a bad name and they went off on there right to speech and called me a "Hollywood liberal" who wants to 'removed everyones right to free speech"
Yeah, you can't make the shit up.
Take it up with them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Really? Most people from the Tea Party camp I've talked to just say that the income tax is a great example of how the government refuses to give back powers it has been granted, regardless of how temporary they were supposed to be. Like the Patriot Act, for example.
Hah! Wait until 2050, when we are still using that word to deride idiot ideologue conservatives. (Not all conservatives mind you, only the idiot ideologues.)
I mistook when I said you'd be hard-pressed... but most critical scholars would agree.
For the Gospel of Matthew, it's generally accepted (though still debated) that Matthew didn't even write the Gospel.
For the Gospel of Mark, it's generally accepted that Mark actually wrote it. But what we know as the Gospel of Mark is likely more than what he originally wrote, especially considering that there are at least four extant versions of the end of the Gospel.
I'm no biblical expert... I took an 'adult enrichment' class in the history of the bible about ten years ago, and have read some about it. I recall less than what is in Wikipedia, which is where I confirmed the above. Hope you can find the kind of sources you're looking for.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.
No, it's really not out of date.
The Supremacy Clause applies to: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ..."
Any federal law that is made NOT in pursuance of the Constitution is therefore also not covered by the Supremacy Clause. For example, current prohibition laws against drugs are NOT authorized by the Constitution (unlike alcohol prohibition was for a brief time back in the 1920s) and therefore the drug war is based on laws made outside of the constitutionally-delegated authority of the Congress. Therefore federal drug laws are not protected by the Supremacy clause. So if a state decided to assert 9th/10th Amendment rights with respect to the federal drug war, it would be completely within its rights to do so.
Also bear in mind that the federal government was CREATED BY the states, in furtherance of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which is the moral basis for American government and which the Constitution theoretically is designed to implement in law. As the declaration states, we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the purpose of government being to secure those Rights, and when any government becomes destructive of those Rights, it is the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it.
but most critical scholars would agree.
So if a scholar does not agree, he isn't critical enough? ;)
For the Gospel of Mark, it's generally accepted that Mark actually wrote it. But what we know as the Gospel of Mark is likely more than what he originally wrote, especially considering that there are at least four extant versions of the end of the Gospel.
So your argument is that because Mark wrote more than what we have in our current New Testament, then... what? This has no bearing on whether or not Mark knew Jesus.
Besides which, I would agree that the Bible as we have it is incomplete and contains many translation errors; this doesn't affect whether or not the original authors knew Jesus.
If you're going to argue that the authors could not have known Jesus, you're going to have to give evidence of that claim.
Wikipedia has some good information on the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the Wikipedia entries don't appear to give any historical evidence either way regarding the existence of the apostles.
The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of Matthew only states the following:
Many scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q". However, other scholars disagree variously on these points.
That doesn't read like it's "generally accepted"; quite the contrary, it seems to indicate that it's a subject of much discussion.
I'm not sure where you're getting your assertions of general acceptance, but it's not from Wikipedia.
I don't think any administration has ever attempted to prevent a state from operating a well regulated militia.
No. "small" isn't mentioned, either. At the time, "arms" consisted of the following (and more, and were being developed into new forms every day):
All manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and extremely hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, caltrops, mines, pits, biologically contaminated materials, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and pikes and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for pages.
Knowing this, and knowing that arms development and refinement went on all the time, what did they put in the constitution? They put "arms." No more, no less. So it's pretty darned clear they meant: "Tools you use to project violence."
I will grant you that they didn't anticipate nuclear weapons specifically, but they were aware of bio-weaponry (it had even been considered on this continent, see General Jeffery Amherst's letters ca. ~1763), and the havoc that a plague represented; they were aware of firestorms (ref. the destruction of a large part of London, ca 1666), they built their dwellings and storehouses almost exclusively out of wood, and so directly had experience with, and recognized the danger of, mass destruction... and yet they still said "arms."
So. If we don't want ownership of nukes to be legal, we need to amend the constitution. Rather than let the government run wild and make laws it is not authorized to make. because once we decide that's ok, there is no law they cannot make.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Maybe he's going to maul you with his bear arms?
Why is it on slashdot, we get more and better arguments about the founding documents of the United States of America, but the politicians, the people we trust to run our goverment appear not to know didily squat about it. The lack of understanding of our so call Representatives is so appalling. Why can they just simply outlaw lobbies to government ? Why does the government consistently eschew its responsibility to it constituents? It as if we wish for leaders, but what we get instead or people of poor quality and small of mind. Congress should be ashamed of it's poor quality.
Perhaps we should start requiring all new bills to be hand written in calligraphy. That would force some conciseness.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid
How is an income tax indirect? Because if it isn't, before the 16th amendment it was illegal unless in proportion to the census or as enumerated in the constitution.
It would be nice if lawyers could read once in a while.
...and only three taxes are known to be direct (in so far as the US constitutional law definition is concerned): Capitation, Property Tax, and Income Tax.
There, fixed that for you. Income tax is direct no matter where it comes from, why the fuck do you think a constitutional amendment was necessary to apply a non-proportionate income tax?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
See for reference the Bush administration
I just want to point out that Bush was a republican, but he was by no means a conservative. The two are not the same.
A constitutional conservative by definition does not play fast and loose with the constitution. If he does, he's a liberal. Period. Party affiliation has nothing at all to do with it.
liberals on the left think the constitution says whatever they want it to.
liberals on the right think the constitution says whatever they want it to.
There, fixed that for you. Conservatives think the constitution means exactly what is written, and will go to great lengths to ensure they are applying it as the founders intended, not as they would prefer it. Anyone who says otherwise is not a conservative, by definition.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
.
And at least participating with others and thinking about things is a lot better than dropping the book in front of the kid and saying "Here read this".
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
Didn't L. Neil Smith have a tee shirt in THE PROBABILITY BROACH with the Constitution overstamped with VOID WHERE PROHIBITED ?
26 years later, the more things change...
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
Please continue with the wine attractive Chanel bags we have. Although we have been in self-harm themselves shopping ban a matter of fact, our fingers magically trying to click Add to Cart button,Chanel Black Handbags,although some people continue to beat us to it. Designer Handbags.Other savvy shoppers on the Internet faster than our fingers, and continue to click on us to a glorious Vintage Chanel bags. Us with a lot of our readers, would like to invite you to continue to add to collect information about you under the guidance of, Shopbop Chanel. Even if we can not retro Chanel bag, at least we can oogle them.Chanel Bags Online Store.
How is an income tax indirect? Because if it isn't, before the 16th amendment it was illegal unless in proportion to the census or as enumerated in the constitution.
Please read Constitutional Law. You are equivocating "direct tax".
In Constitutional Law a direct tax is on a thing, and an indirect tax is on an event. Income tax is a payment, and thus an event, and thus an indirect tax according to US constitutional law.
There, fixed that for you. Income tax is direct no matter where it comes from, why the fuck do you think a constitutional amendment was necessary to apply a non-proportionate income tax?
No! Income Tax is emphatically not a "direct tax" in US Constitutional Law.
Read the actual history behind the 16th amendment. The constitutional amendment was necessary because the Supreme Court ruled that taxing income from property is indistinguishable from taxing property, and thus was a "direct tax" as used in US Constitutional law.
In US Constitutional Law there are only three known direct taxes: a capitation (tax per person), a property tax, and a tax on income from property.
The Supreme Court has never held or even considered that tax on wages and salary might be, according to US Constitutional Law terms, a "direct tax".
In US Constitutional Law income tax is definitively not a "direct tax". Yes, it is a "direct tax" in the usage that everyone else uses, but when talking about the constitutionality of a law, you have to consider the actual language, meaning, and intent of words as they were written. You cannot re-read a newer definition onto a term.
Why I would need to explain this to someone advancing the Tea Party agenda is beyond me.
I do understand that this is confusing, frustrating, and painful terminology. And every person who properly understands the tax law, including every Judge on Earth in the USA, will tell you that it is annoying. However, this is the truth of law in the United States.
No less than this being a truth of law in the US, this is such a patent truth, that to claim so in court threatens dismissal and sanctions for bringing a frivolous case before the court.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Yeah, that really gets the Australians in a tizzy! Have them want to see our bare arms and half want to cover them up.
this is it. Thank you for taking the time to post this and making it so lucid. I've saved a copy to my hard drive for reference.
Liberals and other special interest groups find themselves to be overly constrained by that scrap of paper known as the Constition, blah blah is how it should really read.
WTF is all I can say.
the vast majority of the "conservatives" voted for Bush twice and were eerily silent while Bush was expanding federal and executive power in the name of war. they have zero credibility to argue the position you take up. moreover, electing a Republican, which would be the outcome of "conservative" pragmatism assures that your stated goals are unreachable. and those who did fit in the category "paleo-conservative" that i used in my post you replied to in order to so differentiate them from the neocons. Name me one "conservative" aside from Ron Paul in elected federal office whose behavior comports with your stated beliefs.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay