Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart, I disagree with and would like to rebutt your last post, but I will wait to see if Zynner responds first.

[Protostar]

I don't really know how to respond to this thread, as I agree with Osborn on alot of issues. Here is where I stand on some issues:

-Get rid of all Social Welfare Programs. Allow Charity and Church organizations to take care of the poor and handicapped.
-Abortion. Roe/Wade would be overturned and the right to regulate abortion would be sent back to the states where it belongs. And no more federal funds would be allocated to pay for abortions. You want your choice, fine, you pay for it.
-the 16th Amendment would be repealed and the federal government would no longer have the power to levy an income tax. To pay for operation of the federal government, the states would be required to give the government a percentage of the sales taxes they collect. Something reasonable like 2%.
-the drug war would be ended and marijuana legalized. Eventually over time all drugs would be legalized
-All discriminatory laws would be wiped off the books and the various federal agencies that enforce them, abolished
-All regulations of businesses would be abolished. Corporations should be accountable to noone except their stockholders. Anyone else is irrelevant
-All these fascist laws would be wiped off the books and their authors and supporters tried for treason
-All corporate welfare should be ended. NO subsidies for any industry
-All education should privatized. Schools would now actually have an incentive to do well now because if they don't, parents will simply send the children to other schools and they will be losing money.
-Give Iraq one more year to become a successful democracy. If they aren't by then, I say screw 'em and pull out. We would also stop supporting Israel as well. They've done nothing for us and we should do nothing for them
-Cut all foreign aid to all countries.
-Pull out of the UN and tell them to get the hell out of the US. There will be no world government headquartered here.
-Build huge wall along the Southern border. Capture any illegals at the border and tag them. If they attempt to cross again, shoot them.
-Pass Amendment that would give the people the power to raise Congressmen's salaries that way they have an incentive to do a good job or they will be getting a pay cut.
-Sell all federal lands to private entities, whether they are individuals or corporations. Abolish all federal parks and reserves.

[Jack]

Corporations should be accountable to noone except their stockholders.

So would privately held companies without stockholders be accountable to no one?

[Protostar]

So would privately held companies without stockholders be accountable to no one?

Yes, only to their owners. I compare it to this. You own your house don't you? You decide who comes in and goes out, and if your guest are allowed in certain rooms. So why should companies be any different? Why shouldn't company owners be allowed to do as they please with their businesses as long as they don't violate anyone elses constitutional rights?

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The people are not repsonsible and cannot make decisions regarding the constitutionality of the acts and laws of congress. That is the job of our judges and elected officials.

I say:
I have to point out, you are not only wrong, but it is specified exactly.

What do you suppose is the reason for having a "DEMAND for Redress of Grievance"?

This is when representatives act outside accordance to the will of the citizens. This is the last step, before LEGAL, constitutional revolution. This is a Constitutional process, and is directly addressed.

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.

(clip from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm)
The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people … may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People’s non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on – or place their trust in -- the government’s willingness to respond to the People’s petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I’d like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law …abridging …the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The New Deal has no relevance to the government of today.

I say:
The New Deal has much relevance to the government of today.
(isn't it rude when people don't elaborate. hint hint.)

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
What parts of the government have been changed to go against the constitution? And make sure they are legitimate and not changes that are interpreted by our judges.

I say:
Excuse me? Why would it make a shred of difference if or if not interpreted by a judge?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Tell me exactly HOW the people derived their own power and not the delegates who debated and finally created the constitution.

I say:
OK.

It is called the Preamble, and it frames the purpose and power wielders in the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The only thing that can remove it, is what created it, we the people.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
"They [representatives we vote in] have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office."

The representatives fail us, not the government system.

I say:
What I am saying, and I don't think you understand, is that if a representative fails, he is to be held responsible. If many fail, and pass laws that violate THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this is provable movement toward despotism.

(clippet from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm )
We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.

Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.

Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Ok, maybe my historical example was confusing, so I will restate my state division one, which is just like the Spain one, and I want to hear why and how the division of states socially and religiously is justified:

"Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION."

A divided nation is ineffective, violent, and will cause more harm than an ineffective and violent central government. In the latter case, the people are united and are strong in numbers and can overthrow a violent and completely ineffective government. In the former case, the people are divided and are fighting amongst each other and have no strong numbres to get any reforms accomplished. Civil is a common effect of this division. Look at the United States civil war for example, in why two sides of the nation disagreed over an economical advantage, but a social disadvantage (slavery). Prove me otherwise historically or by another means that these divisions either will not happen, or will be positive for our nation, if that term has any meaning to you.

I say:
I take offense at your accusation, but I will let it pass in the hopes of clearer understanding.

As to your question: The state, or nation, has no intrest in observing religious divide. The state, nor the Federal Government recognize any state or federal advocated religion. There is no such thing, and the basis of this argument is bunk. Slavery was imposed servitude by force, being condoned, or at least RECOGNIZED by the government. Religion is a personal choice, and it is specified in the Constitution that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This type of strife can only be dealt with when RIGHTS are violated.

I do not want to insult you, but we are not even on the same page here. You example is not a valid example to question, in regards to state or federal authority. The last paragraph of your post that I highlighted is purely speculation on opinion about a divided nation. What constitutes a "nation" that works without divide? As of now, many states have concealed carry weapons laws, and many do not. THEY ARE DIVIDED. This provides a choice for people who refuse to accept that they are not allowed by law to carry a loaded, concealed weapon. Your entire argument here is flawed, from its core.

Please examine what I just said, and understand that I cannot address things this far out of context, as it is not reasonable nor justifiable in happening. Now go up to Sonarts post, and notice how he cites evidence, in a legal, or constitutional format. I look forward to addressing his argument, as it is solidly based, though flawed.

Also, as I said in the beginning of the thread: Please limit how many subjects you address per post, as it makes for long drawn out answers in reply.

[Osborn F Enready]

Protostars statements in italics, my answers are in standard type.

I don't really know how to respond to this thread, as I agree with Osborn on alot of issues. Here is where I stand on some issues:

-Get rid of all Social Welfare Programs. Allow Charity and Church organizations to take care of the poor and handicapped.

Answer: This is the only way to Constitutionally do this, as you state. Welfare programs CAN exist Constituionally, just not programs funded by DIRECT taxation to the people, or by INDIRECT taxation of the people. It would have to be voluntary donation to be Constitutional, and not done by a government controlled entity.

-Abortion. Roe/Wade would be overturned and the right to regulate abortion would be sent back to the states where it belongs. And no more federal funds would be allocated to pay for abortions. You want your choice, fine, you pay for it.

Answer: There is no right to regulate abortion, or any other surgery a private citizen contracts of his own means and accord to be done to themselves. People are their own masters, and have full control of their own bodies and minds if deemed to be adults, and rights holding citizens.

-the 16th Amendment would be repealed and the federal government would no longer have the power to levy an income tax. To pay for operation of the federal government, the states would be required to give the government a percentage of the sales taxes they collect. Something reasonable like 2%.

Answer: You have to understand what a DIRECT and an INDIRECT tax is. Direct taxation, such as income tax is ALREADY unconstitutional, as it is DIRECTLY forbidden in the Constitution. The 16th amendment changed that, and needs to be challenged for repeal on these terms, as well as the historical evidence that has been proven which is the move by those in power towards despotism using the tax dollars of those who do not condone it, at risk of use of force, or removal of property at the hands of government agents. The 16th Amendment is a clear violation of the rights of a citizen, and threatens the entire nations right to private property as well as all levels of liberty.

-the drug war would be ended and marijuana legalized. Eventually over time all drugs would be legalized

Answer: The War on Drugs is an illegal prohibition of various substances, due to the allowance of bad precedent. The 1937 Marijuana Tax Stamp Act, wrongly put the power of this in the hands of the Federal Government, based on a flawed set of facts used at the time. This is what has allowed the regulation and control of all drugs in this country, Unconstitutionally.

-All discriminatory laws would be wiped off the books and the various federal agencies that enforce them, abolished

Answer: Discriminatory laws are not allowed by the Constitution, as all are to be viewed equally in the eyes of the law unless proven guilty by a jury of their peers in a just trial.

-All regulations of businesses would be abolished. Corporations should be accountable to noone except their stockholders. Anyone else is irrelevant

Answer: This is not the case. Corporations were only allowed traditionally if the "incorporation" served the local publics intrest. By removing this standard to incorporation, we have opened the door to corporatism, which is the most serious threat to a free market based, capitalist system. What you are saying is that a corporation should be treated as an individual, and this can NOT be, according to the Constitution. The only people who have rights as an individual, are individuals. (married, single or otherwise)

-All these fascist laws would be wiped off the books and their authors and supporters tried for treason

Answer: I agree, as well as I beleive an amendment should be proposed to the Constitution re-outlining exactly what constitutes High Crimes, and Treason, and a method of public redress of grievance that is absolved from court costs, or fees of representation in those courts.

-All corporate welfare should be ended. NO subsidies for any industry

Answer: I agree, as subsidies are a way of abusing the tax system, which is already completely unconstitutional.

-All education should privatized. Schools would now actually have an incentive to do well now because if they don't, parents will simply send the children to other schools and they will be losing money.

Answer: While I don't see a problem with people having organizations to fund the fees for under-privlidged children to attend school of a voluntary nature, it is unconstitutional to use tax money to pay for public schooling.

-Give Iraq one more year to become a successful democracy. If they aren't by then, I say screw 'em and pull out. We would also stop supporting Israel as well. They've done nothing for us and we should do nothing for them

Answer: Regardless of the outcome of the war, the war was waged by the United States outside accordance to Constitutional provision,as well as against the will of the people of the United States. These politicians at all levels, need to be held accountable for these crimes.

-Cut all foreign aid to all countries.

Answer: Foreign Aid is a very misunderstood idea. I would implore all who question the idea of foreign aid to read George Washingtons Farewell Address from office, and to particularly note, the opinion of "entangling alliances". The government has no right to collect most of the taxes they currently do, and to use them for foreign aid is outright wealth redistribution. This is utterly, and entirely unconstitutional.

-Pull out of the UN and tell them to get the hell out of the US. There will be no world government headquartered here.

Answer: I personally am ANTI-UN. This is a cloudy issue for me though, and one I am currently looking at in regards to the Constitution.

-Build huge wall along the Southern border. Capture any illegals at the border and tag them. If they attempt to cross again, shoot them.

Answer: The United States has one of the easiest systems of citizenship to gain legal entry to. If people refuse to use border crossings, and apply for citizenship, they are illegal aliens and should be apprehended or stopped at all costs, including the use of deadly force.

-Pass Amendment that would give the people the power to raise Congressmen's salaries that way they have an incentive to do a good job or they will be getting a pay cut.

Answer: Congress already makes too much, so I entirely disagree.

-Sell all federal lands to private entities, whether they are individuals or corporations. Abolish all federal parks and reserves.

Answer: I also disagree here, as the United States is a sovereign nation, and they have the right to own land both as securities, and as public spaces that the public overall deem essential to preservation of their nations enviroment.

[PatrickHenry]

Osborn, how do you address the issue of poverty? Millions of children in the US, the world's richest-ever nation are living in squalor. And 30,000 children die every day on this earth due to hunger and easily prevented disease, like the need for clean water.

How would you help people to have a chance for a decent life? Hopelessness leads to violence doesn't it? Does our form of government and economics have any means of improving the tragedy of people living in grinding poverty?

MY Leader said: "As you do unto the least of these, you do it unto Me..."

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick Henry said:
Osborn, how do you address the issue of poverty? Millions of children in the US, the world's richest-ever nation are living in squalor. And 30,000 children die every day on this earth due to hunger and easily prevented disease, like the need for clean water.

I say:
Poverty is an issue, but not a state or federal issue in regards to the WORLD. We are our own nation of sovereign status. We are not the worlds keepers, nor are they ours. When you say richest nation in the world, whose coffers do you speak of?

The Federal Coffers that are filled with illegally extorted tax dollars?
The people of the United States earnings and savings?

The Federal Coffers are owned by the people, lock stock and barrel. Any money not used by the government for legitimate taxation purposes should be returned in ENTIRETY to the taxpayers at the end of each tax year. The system always has emergency money, since the years taxes are always in possession of the Fed until the end of the year new tax comes in, as the return for the last year go out.

Our government does not have the power to lay direct taxation upon the citizens for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

Patrick Henry said:
How would you help people to have a chance for a decent life? Hopelessness leads to violence doesn't it? Does our form of government and economics have any means of improving the tragedy of people living in grinding poverty?

I say:
It is not the governments job to help people have a chance for a decent life, OTHER than providing a fair playing field for all citizens in the eyes of the law, and insuring that all cases of fraudulent businesses are accounted for through the justice system.

Welfare, social security, WICK, Food Stamps, and all other forms of socialised welfare can be continued, through voluntary or private, charitable entities. This is not the auspice of government jurisdiction.

Patrick Henry said:
MY Leader said: "As you do unto the least of these, you do it unto Me..."

I say:
I do not think the government has a right to oppress people, wealthy or poor, economically or any other way.

Taxation with threat of force, and lack of chance for appeal, is extortion by use of force or removal of property. This is not sactioned in any way by the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you feel wealth redistribution is a legitimate cause for taxation, show me where the government derives its authrority to do so.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I say:
I have to point out, you are not only wrong, but it is specified exactly.

What do you suppose is the reason for having a "DEMAND for Redress of Grievance"?

This is when representatives act outside accordance to the will of the citizens. This is the last step, before LEGAL, constitutional revolution. This is a Constitutional process, and is directly addressed.

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.

(clip from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm)
The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people … may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People’s non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on – or place their trust in -- the government’s willingness to respond to the People’s petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I’d like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The New Deal has no relevance to the government of today.

I say:
The New Deal has much relevance to the government of today.
(isn't it rude when people don't elaborate. hint hint.)

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
What parts of the government have been changed to go against the constitution? And make sure they are legitimate and not changes that are interpreted by our judges.

I say:
Excuse me? Why would it make a shred of difference if or if not interpreted by a judge?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Tell me exactly HOW the people derived their own power and not the delegates who debated and finally created the constitution.

I say:
OK.

It is called the Preamble, and it frames the purpose and power wielders in the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The only thing that can remove it, is what created it, we the people.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
"They [representatives we vote in] have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office."

The representatives fail us, not the government system.

I say:
What I am saying, and I don't think you understand, is that if a representative fails, he is to be held responsible. If many fail, and pass laws that violate THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this is provable movement toward despotism.

(clippet from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm )
We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.

Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.

Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

Ok, so the people can get together and petition the government if it makes a mistake. Your point? I think you are trying to bend the words of the constitution around your own ideas. By decision making (I should have specified), I mean the immediate decision on the constitutionality of a law or act by the government. For example, sure, a petition is a decision against the acts of government, but the government can dismiss it if they choose to.

I didn't see taxes and money in the constitution pertaining to that section and issure. Did you place them there yourself? Or are you interpreting it for everyone else. If so, you should then realize that maybe your interpretation of what the founding fathers meant is wrong.

I think if the founding fathers thought that government was the "enemy" of freedom, they wouldn't have made a government. Please, Osborn, don't kid yourself. Not only did they dismiss the Articles of Confederation after it gave the U.S. no central backbone in government, but they also gave our nation a strong central goverment with specified restrictions.

Congress has never made a law abridging the right of the people to petition the government. So that stands as well lived up to.

"Excuse me? Why would it make a shred of difference if or if not interpreted by a judge?"

YES. That is why we vote in our judges or have our chosen representatives choose them. They make interpretations of the law. They know and you know and I know that the constitution is very vague after 200 years and only 27 amendments. If congress chooses to make a new law, there is legitimate argument if the law or action by the congress or government does in fact dismiss the rights of the people or does not follow the guidelines of the constitution.

Osborn, my question was how the people derived their own power and not the delegates who were there to represent them.

Then you retorted with the preamble, a portion of the constitution created by the delegates. The delegates, therefore derived the power of the people, not the people themselves; unless, of course, you think that every US citizen was present at the debates for a new constitution, then signed the document saying they agree with it before it went into full effect.

"What I am saying, and I don't think you understand, is that if a representative fails, he is to be held responsible. If many fail, and pass laws that violate THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this is provable movement toward despotism."

Osborn, it's very simple. The people vote in representatives to make laws for them. If those people are corrupt, the responsibility falls not only on the leader but also the ones who voted him/her in! If laws are passed that violate the constitution blatantly and generally accept among the citizens, then they will be punished. Name for me one law that has been passed that almost the entire nation agrees was against the supreme law of the land.

"Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power."

By those weilding government power. Once again, Osborn, this is where reform is needed as explained above.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Ok, maybe my historical example was confusing, so I will restate my state division one, which is just like the Spain one, and I want to hear why and how the division of states socially and religiously is justified:

"Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION."

A divided nation is ineffective, violent, and will cause more harm than an ineffective and violent central government. In the latter case, the people are united and are strong in numbers and can overthrow a violent and completely ineffective government. In the former case, the people are divided and are fighting amongst each other and have no strong numbres to get any reforms accomplished. Civil is a common effect of this division. Look at the United States civil war for example, in why two sides of the nation disagreed over an economical advantage, but a social disadvantage (slavery). Prove me otherwise historically or by another means that these divisions either will not happen, or will be positive for our nation, if that term has any meaning to you.

I say:
I take offense at your accusation, but I will let it pass in the hopes of clearer understanding.

As to your question: The state, or nation, has no intrest in observing religious divide. The state, nor the Federal Government recognize any state or federal advocated religion. There is no such thing, and the basis of this argument is bunk. Slavery was imposed servitude by force, being condoned, or at least RECOGNIZED by the government. Religion is a personal choice, and it is specified in the Constitution that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This type of strife can only be dealt with when RIGHTS are violated.

I do not want to insult you, but we are not even on the same page here. You example is not a valid example to question, in regards to state or federal authority. The last paragraph of your post that I highlighted is purely speculation on opinion about a divided nation. What constitutes a "nation" that works without divide? As of now, many states have concealed carry weapons laws, and many do not. THEY ARE DIVIDED. This provides a choice for people who refuse to accept that they are not allowed by law to carry a loaded, concealed weapon. Your entire argument here is flawed, from its core.

Please examine what I just said, and understand that I cannot address things this far out of context, as it is not reasonable nor justifiable in happening. Now go up to Sonarts post, and notice how he cites evidence, in a legal, or constitutional format. I look forward to addressing his argument, as it is solidly based, though flawed.

Also, as I said in the beginning of the thread: Please limit how many subjects you address per post, as it makes for long drawn out answers in reply.

I simply and clearly explained to you that division of the states through religion is an EFFECT of a more powerful state government. I am not insulted through what you said, only by what you didn't say. For instance, you're basically saying that state powered government is good for such and such, but despite the effect is has on divided states through religion (as the negatives are explained below it), state governments should somehow still recieve more power.

It's like saying you want to give the president a higher salary reducing everyone else's salaray in the white house. Then the justification is saying that you have no interest in lowering everyone else's salary, just an interest in heightening the president's salary.

You are completely dismissing this effect of a more powerful state. I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me.

And, what accusation did I make and where was offense taken?

[Dirty Name]

In order to have full rights in the United States, you must be a BORN or naturalized citizen.

At the risk of making this an abortion thread, I don't think you fully grasp the issue of rights, citizenship, etc. and their impact on the abortion issue and Roe v. Wade.

For starters, US citizenship is irrelevant. One does not have to be a US citizen to qualify for protection under the law. Thus, your entire argument based on the Constitution's definition of who qualifies as a citizen is irrelvant.

Case in point: Can we kill or murder foreign nationals simply because they aren't US citizens? Of course not. This should be enough to convince anyone that the pro-choice argument based on the US Constitution's definition of US citizenship is ridiculous.

The entire abortion argument rests on unalienable rights and the issue of personhood. Rights that everyone has, regardless of citizenship. Therefore the first part of your constitutional argument is nonsense.

The second part is an interesting argument, that I will have to examine more carefully before I attempt to deconstruct it.