You are clearly ignorant of the history of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular. All of those were aimed directly and solely at the federal government, they were based on reservations the states had in ratifying the Constitution without guarantees that the new federal government would not repeat the encroachments that had provoked the revolution.
Let's look at some of the amendments individually.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Are you saying that the states would have been within their rights, under the federal constitution to establish official religions and to outlaw the practice of others before the 14th amendment? In the 1700s, most people didn't have the means or resources to go to the nation's capitol. It would have been extremely difficult to just get to their state capitol.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What crimes did the Federal government have to investigate in the 1700s?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Are you saying that state governments were permitted to force people to testify against themselves, charge them twice with the same crime, or execute them without due process of law before the 14th amendment?
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The founders knew that the vast majority of trials would be held by the states, it's nonsensical to think that they would go to the efford to protect the rights of people only in the smallest possible number of trials. Then again, if you think that "the people" refers to "the individual states of the union", then maybe your understanding is sufficiently lacking to think just about anything.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Could a state have imposed a quadrillion dollar bail for a misdemeanor before the 14th amendment was added?
Finally, let's look at the part of the 14th amendment that you're talking about...
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any per
Sorry, people don't cross some magic date below which they are children and above which they are adults.
We have decided that people become adults on their 18th birthday. There's simply no excuse for discriminating against people who are, in the eyes of the law, adults.
Fact is that people mature over time. A person that has just reached the age of majority doesn't automatically become as mature and responsible as a fully grown adult.
What does that prove? We've had sitting Presidents, grown men well into their 50s and beyond who weren't mature and responsible. At 18, we hold people fully accountable for their actions.
The studies I have referenced shows a strong correlation between start of drinking age and risk of becoming addicted.
I speak english, and a little french. A Swedish study doesn't prove anything to me.
I'm still waiting for your studies that proves that it is good for children to drink.
Why don't you make up something else that I didn't say while you're at it?
I, for one, don't want to have to try to teach my parents how to use PGP so the government won't find out I'm planning to arrive for Christmas dinner at 2PM.
The ACLU position (and that of many others) is that the 2nd amendment was a guarantee against federal regulation that would take the ability to maintain an armed militia away from the states and thereby jeopardize the security and independence of the states.
And that "position" is obviously politically motivated. None of the other occurances of "the people" is intended to confer a collective right, why would it in the second?
This "position" was crafted because there are people who believe that the US would be a better place without guns in civilian hands and if they ignore the 2nd amendment they can accomplish a greater good without the pesky process of repealing it.
The entirety of the Bill of Rights was crafted as guarantees against the federal government (including, but not limited to, the 2nd Amendment.)
Not true. The 4th, 5th, 6th & 8th amendments are clearly aimed at state/local governments. And the 7th is most likely directed towards a lower level of government than federal.
I don't remember any parents supervising the kids in high school who I knew drank.
Most teen drinkers have to manage it or they'll get caught. That's what I was talking about. With a few exceptions, underage drinkers have to be responsible to avoid getting caught.
MADD is the only reason that the drinking age was raised.
I hate those bitches. They're the one group with whom a reasoned debate is not possible, and to even attempt to do so hurts your cause in the eyes of the underinformed. You can't beat a woman who has lost a child.
Look at how Cindy Sheehan was a media darling when she was doing her thing.
When I was a younger man, I used to smoke marijuana. I agree with your source. It was easier to find someone willing to sell me a bag of weed than it was to find someone willing to sell me a six pack of beer.
The Democrats will have the congress next month, so it would be a brilliant move to take a year and a half to organize such a group and present the offer in June of 2008. Let the Democrats pass the law and force President Bush to sign or veto it. No matter what he does, it would hurt the GOP.
ACLU is a wider-focus group that decides to not deal with the 2nd ammendment because the narrow-focus NRA is taking care of it.
Bullshit. The ACLU holds the position that even though "the people" mentioned in other amendments applies to individuals, it is meant collectively in the 2nd amendment. Basically, the ACLU's position is that the government needed to guarantee its own right to be armed and put it into the bill of rights no less.
Federal highway funds are linked to the drinking age. If a state sets their drinking age below 21, they lose millions upon millions of dollars in federal highway funds.
States basically have the choice of discriminating against 18-20 year old adults and going bankrupt.
Because they're vastly outnumbered by the Baby Boomers and their parents who would love nothing better than to punish the people who have what they most wish they still did, youth.
Where's the ACLU when they could actually be doing something helpful.
There's no reason why 21 should be the drinking age when 18 is the age of majority.
People always spout some bullshit about responsibility, but the studies show that people starting to drink at 21 is more harmful than people drinking earlier. When people are younger, they have more parental supervision. They learn how to drink responsibly. When someone is 21 and out on their own, they have no parents to answer to and can do pretty much what they want.
Let's not forget "Biloxi Blues 2-Toomey's Revenge". Jerome and Epstein are having a kosher threeway with Rowena when suddenly Sergeant Merwin Toomey busts in and makes both of them Lucky Pierre with akimbo 1911.45s.
Then we can have "Project Y" where the descendants of the Chimps from Project X decide to get some payback.
Manufacturers who produced more energy-efficient equipment would pay a lower tax. They would then be able to sell the item for a lower price in order to undercut their competition.
Not necessarily, they'd spend more money to produce such equipment.
A simple cost-benefit analysis would determine if a manufacturer would make more profit by producing more energy efficient equipment. If so, then yes but still you and I would end up paying more money out of our pockets for it.
Slap a carbon tax on Microsoft, Intel, AMD and graphics card makers.
In the end, it's you and I who would pay it. Such taxes serve only to depress the standard of living for regular people and give governments more money to waste on pointless bullshit like lobbying for additional taxes.
Why frame it in terms of dollars per month, when the more relevant cost is that on the environment?
Because to normal people, that's what's important. We each have a finite amount of currency(Dollars here in the US) and for every dollar we save on one thing, there's a dollar that can be spent elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's look at some of the amendments individually.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Are you saying that the states would have been within their rights, under the federal constitution to establish official religions and to outlaw the practice of others before the 14th amendment? In the 1700s, most people didn't have the means or resources to go to the nation's capitol. It would have been extremely difficult to just get to their state capitol.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What crimes did the Federal government have to investigate in the 1700s?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Are you saying that state governments were permitted to force people to testify against themselves, charge them twice with the same crime, or execute them without due process of law before the 14th amendment?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The founders knew that the vast majority of trials would be held by the states, it's nonsensical to think that they would go to the efford to protect the rights of people only in the smallest possible number of trials. Then again, if you think that "the people" refers to "the individual states of the union", then maybe your understanding is sufficiently lacking to think just about anything.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Could a state have imposed a quadrillion dollar bail for a misdemeanor before the 14th amendment was added?
Finally, let's look at the part of the 14th amendment that you're talking about...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any per
Sorry, people don't cross some magic date below which they are children and above which they are adults.
We have decided that people become adults on their 18th birthday. There's simply no excuse for discriminating against people who are, in the eyes of the law, adults.
Fact is that people mature over time. A person that has just reached the age of majority doesn't automatically become as mature and responsible as a fully grown adult.
What does that prove? We've had sitting Presidents, grown men well into their 50s and beyond who weren't mature and responsible. At 18, we hold people fully accountable for their actions.
The studies I have referenced shows a strong correlation between start of drinking age and risk of becoming addicted.
I speak english, and a little french. A Swedish study doesn't prove anything to me.
I'm still waiting for your studies that proves that it is good for children to drink.
Why don't you make up something else that I didn't say while you're at it?
LK
I'm not talking about children drinking, I'm talking about adults aged 18-20.
LK
I, for one, don't want to have to try to teach my parents how to use PGP so the government won't find out I'm planning to arrive for Christmas dinner at 2PM.
But how's your dad supposed to send you porno?
LK
The ACLU position (and that of many others) is that the 2nd amendment was a guarantee against federal regulation that would take the ability to maintain an armed militia away from the states and thereby jeopardize the security and independence of the states.
And that "position" is obviously politically motivated. None of the other occurances of "the people" is intended to confer a collective right, why would it in the second?
This "position" was crafted because there are people who believe that the US would be a better place without guns in civilian hands and if they ignore the 2nd amendment they can accomplish a greater good without the pesky process of repealing it.
The entirety of the Bill of Rights was crafted as guarantees against the federal government (including, but not limited to, the 2nd Amendment.)
Not true. The 4th, 5th, 6th & 8th amendments are clearly aimed at state/local governments. And the 7th is most likely directed towards a lower level of government than federal.
LK
Perhaps because they only had sufficient access to alcohol after they're 21 and beyond the reach of parental oversight?
LK
I don't remember any parents supervising the kids in high school who I knew drank.
Most teen drinkers have to manage it or they'll get caught. That's what I was talking about. With a few exceptions, underage drinkers have to be responsible to avoid getting caught.
LK
What you really mean to say is that most white men are really closet pedophiles ;)
I guess you hadn't noticed that not all American men are white.
LK
MADD is the only reason that the drinking age was raised.
I hate those bitches. They're the one group with whom a reasoned debate is not possible, and to even attempt to do so hurts your cause in the eyes of the underinformed. You can't beat a woman who has lost a child.
Look at how Cindy Sheehan was a media darling when she was doing her thing.
LK
When I was a younger man, I used to smoke marijuana. I agree with your source. It was easier to find someone willing to sell me a bag of weed than it was to find someone willing to sell me a six pack of beer.
LK
It doesn't much matter if they're soldiers or in the Philippines. American men don't check the age of asian girls.
LK
The Democrats will have the congress next month, so it would be a brilliant move to take a year and a half to organize such a group and present the offer in June of 2008. Let the Democrats pass the law and force President Bush to sign or veto it. No matter what he does, it would hurt the GOP.
LK
ACLU is a wider-focus group that decides to not deal with the 2nd ammendment because the narrow-focus NRA is taking care of it.
Bullshit. The ACLU holds the position that even though "the people" mentioned in other amendments applies to individuals, it is meant collectively in the 2nd amendment. Basically, the ACLU's position is that the government needed to guarantee its own right to be armed and put it into the bill of rights no less.
LK
I do not have access to my books at the present, I will try to get back to you on this in two weeks. I'll put it in my journal.
LK
Federal highway funds are linked to the drinking age. If a state sets their drinking age below 21, they lose millions upon millions of dollars in federal highway funds.
States basically have the choice of discriminating against 18-20 year old adults and going bankrupt.
LK
Because they're vastly outnumbered by the Baby Boomers and their parents who would love nothing better than to punish the people who have what they most wish they still did, youth.
LK
Where's the ACLU when they could actually be doing something helpful.
There's no reason why 21 should be the drinking age when 18 is the age of majority.
People always spout some bullshit about responsibility, but the studies show that people starting to drink at 21 is more harmful than people drinking earlier. When people are younger, they have more parental supervision. They learn how to drink responsibly. When someone is 21 and out on their own, they have no parents to answer to and can do pretty much what they want.
LK
The WOPR, almost as big and juicy as The Whopper.
LK
Let's not forget "Biloxi Blues 2-Toomey's Revenge". Jerome and Epstein are having a kosher threeway with Rowena when suddenly Sergeant Merwin Toomey busts in and makes both of them Lucky Pierre with akimbo 1911 .45s.
Then we can have "Project Y" where the descendants of the Chimps from Project X decide to get some payback.
LK
Are you going to have your way with my mother?
A more important question is who didn't have his way with her?
LK
This.... this is why your profits are slipping, bad movies, not piracy.
But how many of us are going to pirate ths bitch?
LK
Manufacturers who produced more energy-efficient equipment would pay a lower tax. They would then be able to sell the item for a lower price in order to undercut their competition.
Not necessarily, they'd spend more money to produce such equipment.
A simple cost-benefit analysis would determine if a manufacturer would make more profit by producing more energy efficient equipment. If so, then yes but still you and I would end up paying more money out of our pockets for it.
LK
Slap a carbon tax on Microsoft, Intel, AMD and graphics card makers.
In the end, it's you and I who would pay it. Such taxes serve only to depress the standard of living for regular people and give governments more money to waste on pointless bullshit like lobbying for additional taxes.
LK
Why frame it in terms of dollars per month, when the more relevant cost is that on the environment?
Because to normal people, that's what's important. We each have a finite amount of currency(Dollars here in the US) and for every dollar we save on one thing, there's a dollar that can be spent elsewhere.
LK
Until that one lady captain made them emo.
Do not forget Hugh.
He brought the concept of individuality to the Borg. And I just don't have the energy to discuss Lore's role.
LK