Things that I marvel at

[ali032373]

The country wasn't founded on the 10A.

The 10th A says
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which is the the same is what I wrote about a centralized government.

But the country was not founded on this idea as you wrote. The country was founded on a much broader idea of the rights of the individual- rights that come from God and can't be curtailed by any man or government.

 

[The Ween]

Can we assume you're a teacher then haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not.

And they should lose their jobs. I have yet to see a teenager that I'd risk my job for. Ummm.....no!

 

[WellCQCaboutthat]

Hey Ween, I think the Forum is just telling you that they want you to type less. Seems pretty mean to me.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[hockeyflow33]

The country wasn't founded on the 10A.

The 10th A says
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which is the the same is what I wrote about a centralized government.

But the country was not founded on this idea as you wrote. The country was founded on a much broader idea of the rights of the individual- rights that come from God and can't be curtailed by any man or government.

That's not a proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment. The founding fathers always intended the country to be a sum of its parts and allow the states to determine how they wanted to run. Madison, easily the best of any constitutional authorities, has a famous quote along the lines of the federal government has few and clearly defined rules while the states have an indefinite amount.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ali032373]

What I wrote is not an interpretation of the 10th A. It's the basic text.

The concept of limited, enumerated fed power is NOT what the country was founded on (which is what you wrote). That's just not correct.

Look at it chronologically- the Dec of Indep was written in 1776. It basically states that a person has the right to live a life of their choosing- the proclamation that certain rights flow from a divine source. It was the driving force in separating from England.

The 10th A shows up in the Constitution in roughly 1790 when the founders sought to codify laws and a system of govt in an effort to protect the freedoms of citizens. The 10th A is a part of a system to protect freedoms, along with three co-equal branches of govt and the system of checks and balances. The 10th A is unique a part of the structure of the US govt, and it's a tenet of how our govt operates between the state and federal governments, but that's not what the country is founded on.

 

[The Ween]

Hey Ween, I think the Forum is just telling you that they want you to type less. Seems pretty mean to me.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Probably. Too bad though.

It's just a glitch I'm sure. Probably be okay now that I'm done with the subject.

 

[hockeyflow33]

What I wrote is not an interpretation of the 10th A. It's the basic text.

The concept of limited, enumerated fed power is NOT what the country was founded on (which is what you wrote). That's just not correct.

Look at it chronologically- the Dec of Indep was written in 1776. It basically states that a person has the right to live a life of their choosing- the proclamation that certain rights flow from a divine source. It was the driving force in separating from England.

The 10th A shows up in the Constitution in roughly 1790 when the founders sought to codify laws and a system of govt in an effort to protect the freedoms of citizens. The 10th A is a part of a system to protect freedoms, along with three co-equal branches of govt and the system of checks and balances. The 10th A is unique a part of the structure of the US govt, and it's a tenet of how our govt operates between the state and federal governments, but that's not what the country is founded on.

I disagree. You're talking about a 12 year difference between the DofI and the Constitution, in which this country was still being figured out. The two documents are symbiotic and without one, this country would not have survived. The country was absolutely founded on supposed limited federal power. The founders knew that an overreaching and all-powerful government was what they needed to avoid so they set up "local" governments to determine what was best for states.

 

[ali032373]

So what was the purpose of avoiding "an overreaching and all powerful government" as you wrote? Why was that a major concern?

It was a major concern because they did not want another powerful central govt trampling the rights of the individual. States rights is a means to achieve that goal. But the country was not "founded" on states rights.

Look at the some of the other Amendements- freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the ban on the govt using your house to station troops, ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, due process- these are all tools to protect the individual from the power of govt (here, both state and fed). The protection of the rights of individual is *clearly* the overriding factor in what are basically the first laws ever in this country.

Also, I would disagree that the docs are symbiotic. The Constitution totally needs the Dec of I, but the Dec of I does not need the Constitution. The Dec of I served its purpose by declaring independence and establishing the idea that man has certain God given rights. After that, the playbook was wide open- the founders could have tried to achieve that goal w/ a number of govt choices- limited power monarchy maybe, or a theocracy, or something else.

 

[hockeyflow33]

So what was the purpose of avoiding "an overreaching and all powerful government" as you wrote? Why was that a major concern?

It was a major concern because they did not want another powerful central govt trampling the rights of the individual. States rights is a means to achieve that goal. But the country was not "founded" on states rights.

Look at the some of the other Amendements- freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the ban on the govt using your house to station troops, ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, due process- these are all tools to protect the individual from the power of govt (here, both state and fed). The protection of the rights of individual is *clearly* the overriding factor in what are basically the first laws ever in this country.

Also, I would disagree that the docs are symbiotic. The Constitution totally needs the Dec of I, but the Dec of I does not need the Constitution. The Dec of I served its purpose by declaring independence and establishing the idea that man has certain God given rights. After that, the playbook was wide open- the founders could have tried to achieve that goal w/ a number of govt choices- limited power monarchy maybe, or a theocracy, or something else.

So I actually agree with you I just think that states rights were also a very important component as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[a-dev]

Emailing clear direct questions to a store and getting what reads like an answer to someone else's email altogether. And I knew in advance that would be the case because it usually has been in the past. Dunno why I bothered.

 

[Chakor]

Things I F#$%ing marvel at: that I didn't realize you could switch themes from red to green on this site. Wow, the green theme just looks so much better IMO.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Oh that's right. You weren't here when it was green, and then Dave changed it to needing sunglasses to view this place.

 

[hockeyflow33]

People who get neck tattoos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xipotec]

People who get neck tattoos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I made a mistake of saying people who get tattoo on there face and neck would have a hard time finding a good job......in a tattoo parlor.......

But I stand by what I said...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake Plissken]

People who get neck tattoos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually plan on getting one in the next year or so. Small though, and it's more on my trap.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Well it will be a very badass tattoo.

 

[hockeyflow33]

Well it will be a very badass tattoo.

It's just a bad *** one so it's way too large and a cottage-cheesy bum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake Plissken]

The name on the legal document I just had to review.

Trumpfheller.

 

[Shawpaw]

I really am not a fan of face and most neck tattoos. Of course I just like when tattoos look good. Most people here in OK with face tattoos are just gross.

 

[xipotec]

What was the outcome of your words, lol, please tell me what happened

Hahahah , nothing really . They guy tattooing next to me had several on his face......I quickly recovered by saying that if you were in the industry it was fine.....
Or an artist......
Or designer.....

But most jobs wouldn't accept tattoos above the collar.....

I have six of them, but they are covered by either my dress shirts or coat when at work....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk