[aldo_14]

[q]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 person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [/q]

?

[redmenace]

Bleh, to early to be posting.

I certainly am not going to sit here are criticize equal protection. What I meant was the 16th admendment.

[wolfdog]

Let's see... most Expensive I've seen is about 1.37 euro/liter, which comes down to about  $1.67/liter (US dollars)
Oh, and the Netherlands/Belgium are indeed NOT part of scandinavia, let alone Commies, was that a joke or something?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Bleh, to early to be posting.

I certainly am not going to sit here are criticize equal protection. What I meant was the 16th admendment.

What, income tax?

[redmenace]

Yes, from my point of view it was one of the most expansive admendments. Can you think of a greater breach of privacy? Much assault on states rights. Originally the income tax was used against the insanely wealthy. Although I have problems with that, it has only gotten worse. This admendment is followed by the new deal and the great society as absolutly critical to understanding the situation that we are in now. Let not forget the Interstate Highway Act either. No I know, someone is going to say but they bring us a great deal of good. In response to that, they usher is as much if not more evil.

[EtherShock]

Well, one thing the Interstate did was take away funding from other roads, and some have become downright deadly, usually in the middle of nowhere. Plus the Interstate's true purpose is for the military. We have a whole infrastructure that is being neglected and needs to be updated. The problem is, it's so damn huge.

I agree the government has too much control. (Ha!) It's exactly what our forefathers feared. That's why the States held the majority of powers, but slowly, we've been giving those up, and you damn well know the government isn't just going to hand them back.

Originally posted by ngtm1r
It's funny. My parent's house cost them about $300,000 when they got it. When I was a graduated from high school, the price of houses on that street was pushing $950,000. It's probably still going up.

I live where some of the most valuable real estate is in the country, and wherever they build, the houses are huge. More rich people are moving into my town and property taxes just keep going up and up and up. Soon we won't be able to afford to live here. I'll bet this is happening in other towns too, not just mine. It's not fair to the little guy.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Yes, from my point of view it was one of the most expansive admendments. Can you think of a greater breach of privacy? Much assault on states rights. Originally the income tax was used against the insanely wealthy. Although I have problems with that, it has only gotten worse. This admendment is followed by the new deal and the great society as absolutly critical to understanding the situation that we are in now. Let not forget the Interstate Highway Act either. No I know, someone is going to say but they bring us a great deal of good. In response to that, they usher is as much if not more evil.

How else would you raise money for public spending?

Y'know, accounting for the modern day rich-poor divide.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by redmenace
Yes I know, that is why I said congress is the only thing hurting the economy. Unfortunatly, the battle lines are set and most in congress don't want to have their individual pet projects threatened. I cannot stand it anymore. Personally, this is the legacy of the 14 Admendment and the New Deal and over two centurys of strengthening the Federal Gov't.

Part of it is the legacy of the New Deal. A lot of it is the bloated defence budget, the pork barrel spending on both sides (yes, they both do it about the same), and also a total lack of the leadership from either Congress or Bush to actually do something about it.


What will hurt is the massive amounts of consumer debt in this country. Congress really had nothing to do with that, but they aren't willing to show any leadership to get them out of debt either.

Interstate freeways have done much good. They did have unfortunate side effects, but the US is better off with them. Besides, the americans just copied them from the Nazis after WW2.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


How else would you raise money for public spending?

Y'know, accounting for the modern day rich-poor divide.

Well originally tarrifs were used to fund public spending. But of course I think that Gov't responcibility is only to provide a postal system, Common defense and "general welfare"(which I am not even sure my self means.) Now individual states can raise money for public spending throught income taxes. But the individual states cannot spend more revenue than they recieve.

As per the Interstate Highway Act, yes it established roadways across the US ushering in greater interstate commerce. But of the same time, strengthened the Federal Gov't.

You are also forgetting the Great Society programs of LBJ and Jimmy Carter. Those have also promoted the bloated budgets we are now seeing.

And in regaurds to pork barrel legislation, being a person that lives in Northern Virginia, I fully aknowledge the need for more transportation spending. However, this money should come exclusivly from the states and not by George Allen and Tom Davis pencil it in to the budget.

[Kosh]

How can you support "general welfare" when you don't even know what it means?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kosh
How can you support "general welfare" when you don't even know what it means?

I meant that there is a great deal of confusion and debate on what that clause actually means. Some say it mean that the Federal Gov't has the right and power to hand out specific welfare to individuals and other things of that nature. Then there are others that say other wise. I support it because is specifically enumerated in the preamble of the constitution. I should also mention that the original authors mean the the preamble was supposed to be a general comment and the following articles narrowed down what general welfare is considered to be.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
It's funny. My parent's house cost them about $300,000 when they got it. When I was a graduated from high school, the price of houses on that street was pushing $950,000. It's probably still going up.

It sucked, though, because I was the only middle-class kid of my age group in the neighborhood.

The housing bubble bursted in Colorodo, I think.

[Kosh]

Got any links to that?

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]Section 1. ... 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 person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[/q]

The Equal Protection Clause.  Nice in theory, but in practice it's been used to justify Congress wielding increasingly greater power over the several States.

[Kosh]

So I take it that it would be perfectly ok with you if some certain southern states went back to Jim Crow?

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by aldo_14


How else would you raise money for public spending?

Y'know, accounting for the modern day rich-poor divide.

tax cuts ?

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Kosh
So I take it that it would be perfectly ok with you if some certain southern states went back to Jim Crow?

Of course not. That, as Kazan is so fond of saying, is a straw man argument.

The Equal Protection Clause vastly increases the power of the federal government by giving it jurisdiction over the laws that the states pass.  The federal constitution should concern itself only with the federal government, leaving the state constitutions to concern themselves with the state governments.  That's as it should be, and that's as the Constitution was originally written.

[Kosh]

Those states would most likely still have laws like Jim Crow if it wasn't for the intervention of the federal government. It sounds to me like you are saying the Equal Protections Clause is a bad thing. It did destroy Jim Crow after all.

[Goober5000]

It also set up a dangerous precedent that the federal government now has extensive authority to meddle in state affairs.  The Jim Crow reforms should have been made under the Southern state constitutions, not the federal constitution.

[TrashMan]

gas is afule sorce fit for history books. in about 40 years it will be long gone, and prices are gonna get higher and higher as it slowly drains.
It wouldn't surprise me if it at least doubles by 2020...
and then we're ****ed:(