hugo

The world would be better off if 95% of the people in it had never been born.

You can't form an unconstitutional law. A point someone continues to ignore. I cut and pasted a 5th grade level instruction on our Constitution because obviously someone never got to 5th grade. The Constitution limits both the power of the federal government and the states. That is why we ain't able to own negros anymore much to the dismay of Wallace type big government conservatives such as TJ. Think I will continue to support the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia: Your body is even more intimate. Scalia is a true small government conservative. He would throw out this law in a heartbeat.

The Basics The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. All other laws come from the Constitution. It says how the government works. It creates the Presidency. It creates the Congress. It creates the Supreme Court. Each state also has a constitution. The constitutions of the states are their highest law for that state — but the United States Constitution is higher. The Constitution can be changed. The Constitution is changed by an "amendment." Among the amendments is a list of the rights of the people. By listing these rights, they are made special. It is illegal for the government to violate those rights. As of 2006, there are 27 amendments. Not all of them involve rights, but many do. The first ten amendments are special. They are called the Bill of Rights. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Framers worked for four months over the course of a hot summer in Philadelphia to craft the Constitution. History The Constitution was written in 1787. Yes, it is over 200 years old. We actually have old copies of what was created. The master copies are stored at the National Archives in Washington D.C. We also have pictures of the Constitution on this site. From May to September 1787 a group of men known as the Framers met. The Framers talked about what should be in the Constitution. The United States was a brand new country. The United States had a government that did not work very well. The Framers met to find a new way of running the country. This meeting is called The Convention. Some of the Framers are famous to us today. They include James Madison, Ben Franklin, and George Washington. At that time there were only 13 states. The men came from all the states except Rhode Island. Each state had ideas for the new government. The Framers had many debates. They talked a lot. They make a lot of speeches. By talking about it, they came up with a plan that everyone could agree with. They had to have a lot of compromises. Only by agreeing could all the arguments be worked out. Ben Franklin said the he was not sure if the plan was perfect. He said that it was probably as perfect as it could be. This map of the United States was published in 1784 by William Faden. After the Convention, the Constitution had to be approved. Actually, only nine states had to agree to, or ratify, the Constitution. But everyone wanted all 13 states to agree. Two states took a long time to decide to agree. These states were Rhode Island and North Carolina. In the end, they did agree. Once the first nine states agreed, we say the Constitution was "ratified." New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendments When the Constitution was written, the Framers knew their creation was not perfect. They knew that other people would have good ideas for the Constitution. They wanted to be sure that it wasn't too hard to make changes. They also wanted to be sure that it wasn't too easy. The Framers added an amendment process. An amendment to the Constitution is a change that can add to the Constitution or change an older part of it. Originally, some people did not want to ratify the Constitution. One big reason was that it did not have a bill of rights. A bill of rights is a list of rights that belong to the people. The government is not allowed to break these rights. Some of these rights might sound familiar: the right of free speech; the right to practice your own religion; the right to be silent if you are arrested. The original Constitution had no bill of rights. Many of the Framers did not think it was needed. But many people wanted one. So, promises were made to add one, using the amendment process. Soon, the new government started meeting. Congress proposed the Bill of Rights. A list of twelve changes was sent to the states. In 1791, ten of those changes were agreed to by the states. The ten changes were added to the Constitution. These ten changes are called the "Bill of Rights." Other changes to the Constitution are discussed below. The last change to the Constitution was made in 1992. The 27th Amendment is actually one of the two left-over amendments from 1791. It is very unusual for an amendment to take that long to be accepted, but it is possible. Some, like the 26th Amendment, are accepted very quickly, in just 100 days. Most, though, take a little over a year to be ratified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This image of a black slave appealed to the humanity of free whites, asking, "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image accompanied the antislavery poem "Our Countrymen in Chains" by John Greenleaf Whittier, published in 1837. Slavery In 1787, most of the black people in America were slaves. A slave is someone who is owned by someone else. Today, there are no legal slaves in America. It was common in 1787. As time went by, more people thought that slavery was wrong. Most of the people who wanted to end slavery were from the states in the north. They were called abolitionists. Most of the people who wanted to keep slavery were from the states in the south. Slavery was important in the South. A lot of how the people in the south made money involved slaves. Slaves were worth money. Slaves picked their crops, like cotton and tobacco. The people in the North wanted to end slavery. They said it was an important step for America. The people of the South were afraid of losing slavery. They were afraid of losing business. They thought that having slavery was important for each state choose on its own. When President Lincoln was elected, the South got very angry. Lincoln had said he didn't like slavery. Most of the Southern states decided to break away from the United States. They created their own country. It was called the Confederate States of America. The USA did not agree that the states of the CSA could break away. The Civil War followed. The USA won that war. It was a terrible war. Many people died. Many buildings were destroyed. Something good did happen, though. Slavery ended. With the 13th Amendment, slavery was made illegal. The 14th Amendment said that every person born in the United States was a full citizen. Even former slaves were full citizens. The 15th Amendment made sure that black people could vote. These changes protected many freedoms. But it took a long time to change peoples' minds. Many people still did not like black people. They thought that white people were better. For 100 years, some laws reflected this feeling. Today, these laws are also gone. Most people do not think that anyone is better than someone else just because of their color. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A portrait of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Stanton and Anthony were leaders in the "suffragette" movement, the movement to give the vote to women. Women At the beginning, we talked about the men who were the Framers. For a long time, most of the people who shaped the country were men. This is not because women could not help. It is not because women did not want to help. Instead, men held all the positions of power. Men were the Presidents. Men were the members of Congress. Men were the mayors. Men were the owners of companies. Women had very little chance to advance in life. Today, many women like taking care of the home. Today, though, this is a choice. Before, this was the only option for a woman. Women had no role in government. They had no role in politics. They were homemakers. They took care of their husbands or fathers. They took care of kids. Most men did not feel that women should vote. There were actually laws that said women could not vote. Many people decided this was wrong and many women and some men fought against it. Finally, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed. It says that women can vote in all elections. Today, women are active in government and politics. Being able to vote is a big part of that. Without the ability to vote, women had no voice. Without a voice, there was no reason for politicians to care what women think. They did not care about issues that are important to women. Once women could vote, some got very interested in politics. Some women ran for office. There have not yet been any women as President. However, it is only a matter of time before the first woman President is elected. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of, and from, religion. The Bill of Rights We already talked about the Bill of Rights. It was passed because some people were afraid that the government would have too much power. They were afraid that some important things could be made illegal. They wanted to be sure to keep those things legal. For example, you can say whatever you want about the President. You can say that you don't like his hair. You can say you don't like his voice. You can say you don't like the war in Iraq. You can say you don't like his tax ideas. It seems normal to us to be able to say these things. We can criticize the President. We can criticize a member of Congress. We can criticize a mayor. We can say what things they do that we don't like. This is only possible because of the Right of Free Speech. The Bill of Rights protects Free Speech. The freedom to express yourself, in speech, in writing, and in protest, is also protected by the Bill of Rights. Imagine if there was no right to free speech. A law could be passed that says that if you criticize the President's hair, you can spend a day in jail. Or worse, criticizing the President's taxes can get you a year in jail. These are the kinds of laws that the Framers were afraid of. The Bill of Rights protects us from such laws. We cannot be put in jail because of our opinions. The Bill of Rights protects a lot of other freedoms. For example, you can believe in any religion you want. The government cannot force you to believe in something. You cannot be forced to house soldiers in your home. The police cannot come into your home without a good reason. The police may not take your papers without reason. The police cannot force you testify against yourself in court. In fact, the police cannot force you to tell them anything at all. This is called the "right to remain silent". And you cannot be given unusual punishments. You cannot be given twenty years in jail for speeding.

Thanks...I think. The Constitution defends my classical liberal principles. I guess if I was a modern liberal or archaic conservative I would not be quite as enamored with it. I just don't trust majority rule and see a constitutional republic as the best method to defend the individual against excesses from the left and right. If we could bring back the olden days, minus the racism and sexism, I would be a happy man.

In the 60's there were basically two brands of conservatism. One was represented by Barry Goldwater, the other George Wallace. We got Wallace types here.

But a liberal state might think it a good idea to insure the gun buyer is fully informed. Don't f with the Constitution. There is only one way to form a law when your agenda is unconstitutional and that is to amend the Constitution which was wisely made quite difficult to prevent tyrannical majorities depriving individuals of individual liberty. There is a Roman Catholic couple I know who I respect their moral stance which is actually based on scripture. Their only birth control method was the rhythm method. Y'all simply wish to enforce every woman to use the pill. That ain't worth violating the Constitution for.I can understand why single males who wish to spread their penis around would find forced birth control a good idea. Depriving women of rights so ya can freely fornicate ain't constitutional though In a democracy laws are formed when 50+% of the populace decide to deprive the rest of the populace of their liberty on one or more issues. The Constitution guarantees individuals liberty from the wouldbe tyrannical majority.

Actually, tens of million of babies may well be being aborted. Just most of them are being aborted just shortly after conception by birth control methods. You are not opposed to abortion..just abortion after a specific period.. You do not even believe the life of the fetus is sacred at any point since you favor the killing of the children of rapists and grandfathers. I suspect the pro-life movement is financed by manufacturers of birth control methods. I suspect opposing abortion allows those who succuth on the false tittith of sex outside of marriage to still feel moral. A point conservatives might understand. You go to buy a gun, The gun shop owner says "There is a new law. You must go to the morgue and look at suicide by gunshot victims and pay $100 for the privelege". Ya don't think that would infringe on the Constitution? The law will be ruled unconstitutional it is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. Government cannot force a search of an innocent individuals body which is exactly what this law does. Many states never gave up Jim Crow until judicial decisions forced them to. The Constitution limits tyranny, by government, of the individual. It was the love of limited government that made us a great nation It is the love of government control that is bankrupting us both financially and morally. The complexity in the Constitution consists of attempts to limit the tyranny of the majority. The powers granted to government are pretty straight forward. They are in Article I Section 8 of our great constitution and the amendments.

Yes, and he can also roll a bigger rock than he can make.

The solution is school vouchers.

While sin taxes are wrong forcing someone to watch fat porn and then charging for part of the production costs of it is just fine. That way they will be fully informed. Taxes are a much more moral and responsible act than our current policy of passing our bills on to our kids.

It was considered a fact when I was taught biology. I am pretty old but I don't think human biology has changed since then. The fact is the Constitution protects the individual and if there is such a universally accepted moral belief on the need to change a law in order to deprive individuals of liberty we have an amendment process to do so.

The whole crux of the "conservative" argument here for forced ultrasounds is that government knows better than a doctor and a patient how to treat that patient.

From George Washington's Farewell Address; Much more in tune with Ron Paul than GW Bush: 31 Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ? 32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim. 33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. 34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. 35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. 36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. 37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. 38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. 39 Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? 40 It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. 41 Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. 42 Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. Of course our founding fathers were radicals, revolutionary ones at that.

I thought those opposed to Obamacare wished to keep medical decisions between the patient and the doctor and eliminate government intervention?

Correct, costs imposed on corporations are almost entirely paid by the consumer.

It is sad that someone who believes in the Constitution and follows the foreign policy of George washington is now a radical.

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov Notice Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, and Joseph Kennedy's names on the co-sponsor list? It looks like this was a bill primarily supported by Democrats a forced liability insurance program imposed on oil companies.

The unborn are not citizens and have no rights under the US Constitution. Forcing someone to have an unneccesary examination of their body in order to undergo a legal medical procedure is, once again, a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment. Making them pay for it adds insult to injury and is a gross violation of the natural law principles our nation was founded upon. Forcing a would be fetus exterminator to listen to some medical practitioner point out the babies fingers and toes as they look at the ultrasound they were forced to undergo is a gross violation of the First Amendment. For the second time in three years an Oklahoma abortion law will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Let me requote Barry:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed� before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,� I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.� — Barry Goldwater There was a time when conservatives respected the Constitution.

Good question. I am waiting for the answer. The Bill of Rights Freedom of speech includes the right not to listen. Government forcing someone to undergo an ultrasound is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment..the right to be secure in your persons. No court will hold this law constitutional. It is a gross violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments. Thank God for the Constitution. From Orwell's 1984:

Somehow I managed to get a degree in Economics without watching a single video on the subject. I like hotdogs. Don't really wanta see the manufacturing process (I bet chicken beaks are utilized). Guess I got mental issues.

Be very careful when encouraging government power. It will come back and bite ya in the ass.

http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/ Chopping off their beaks! What total assholes! I ain't eating at KFC no more. Thanks, Pam. You are a great human being.

There was a time when conservatives were for less government.

In the Reagan Library, Only Ron Paul Carries the Reagan Mantle SIMI VALLEY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In 1976, Ron Paul was one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for President. In tonight’s debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Congressman Paul once again showed that he is the candidate that stands for the conservative principles of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.� .Asked if Ronald Reagan would endorse him for President today, Ron Paul responded that he couldn't know that for certain. But Dr. Paul went on to say that he had been an early leader in supporting Ronald Reagan's election in 1976, and that Reagan had in fact endorsed him and campaigned for his election to Congress in the past. Of Dr. Paul, Ronald Reagan once said: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.� No other presidential candidate can claim a conservative record that matches Dr. Paul’s: Congressman Paul has never voted to raise taxes. Congressman Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Congressman Paul has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. Congressman Paul has never voted to raise congressional pay. Congressman Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. Congressman Paul supported Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford in 1976.