the A.C.L.U.---protecting our CONSTITUTIONAL values

[p0ink]

"This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good. " - RyanH

^this really shows your true colors.

and sushi x, you used to be conservative; what happened?

 

[curling]

Danielson is absolutely right, Warik. Who is to say that a Muslim passing through this small town would not feel excluded by the government endorsement of religion.

If they don't like it they fly freak'n towel butts back to their piece of crap sand dune desert ass country as long as they don't hit any of our buildings along the way back. Muslims???...Ryan who give a flying ass screw what a Muslim thinks in our country they are lucky we don't put their ass in camps like we did the japs after pearl harbor.

oh the btw I hate the ACLU, matter of fact, they were founded by communist. And it seems like if you inherited alot of money you wouldn't like communist because they would take it from you and devide among everyone here at Elite(hmmm on second thought that is not a bad idea)

 

[cockdezl]

that's precisely right, and Matt, perhaps you ought to consider a course in logic. The definition of sovereign according to the American Heritage Dictionary is: one that exercises supreme power, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. Now, this definition would naturally allow an entity to NOT be sovereign in several ways. For example, an entity might not be sovereign because it is restricted by a ruler, restricted by a theocracy, restricted by a monarchy, or restricted by the powers of a broad representative body/Congress. Thus, there are a mulitude of ways in which an entity is not sovereign. Being restricted by the broader powers of a Democratic form of government is just one of them, and it is this definition that applies to our present discussion.
States are not completely sovereign because the federal government restricts them in a multitude of ways---through the Commerce Clause, through the taxing power, etc. My earlier statement would only be circular if there was only one way that an entity could not be sovereign---which just isn't the case. Nevertheless onto more important issues.

The 10th Amendment only states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Therefore, states basically get what the United States Supreme Court and Congress deem do not belong to the federal government. Of course, there are traditional areas that have always been left to the states such as matters of divorce, the family, safety/crime, and healthcare issues. But, the Federal government through the Commerce Clause has managed to intrude into those areas as well. Example: The Supreme Court has invalidated many state safety laws (an area traditionally afforded to the states but not longer because of its impact on intestate commerce). In short, it's not very difficult for Congress to encroach on states rights so long as it can find a sufficient nexus between the interest at play and its effect on interstate commerce----which is very easy to do. So to say that states are sovereign in theory is correct, but in actuality it is just simply not the case.

Again, RYAN, you show your socialist indoctrination from that fine establishment of Emory. I am sure they never required you to read anything concerning the Constitutional Debates or what the legislative intent was in regards to our government, since this would contradict the socialist professors' agendas.

Here are the facts, straight from their mouths:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. This has its origin in the love of power. Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves." - Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Paper No.15, 1787.

"Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrants." - James Madison

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.

"The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

Your logic is flawed because it states that States are subservient to the Federal Government, because the Federal Government imposes its will upon the States, and it is obvious that this is not by Constitutional design, but by the whims of men.

If you can find me a reference where the Founders stated that all States would be subject to the Central Government's will, I would be very interested. This would be no different than a feudal state.

Of course, there are many restrictions on the First Amendment. For instance, schools have every right to limit a student's first amendment speech if that speech creates a "material disruption", and local communities have the constitutional right to limit obscenity from being sold (sexually oriented speech) if a community finds that it is not in accordance with its standards. The list goes on; I could cite many other examples, but time limits me.

This is correct, and this is because, there are some degrees of a right that are restricted due to being members in a social contract, but your logic allows for the constant, unimpeded restrictions on rights that could easily allow for Sedition laws to return.

As for your reasoning why states are subject to the central government, you are not basing this on law, but on present state of affairs. It would be like saying "I can't own anything, because it just gets stolen everyday." Judicial activism and wild interpretations of text can alter reality to whatever one wishes it to be.