Jump to content
I ignore nothing. The first 10 ammendments are, for all intents and purposes, part of the original doccument as far as THIS particular argument is concerned.
Agreed, that leaves 20+ examples of states ratifying ammendments to the original Constitution. However, that is not the type of "living doccument" leftists refer to when arguing things like the General Welfare clause or the Interstate Commerce language as grounds for boundless authority; which is exactly what leftists like yourself like to do.
Obtaining sanction from 38 states on any topic, constitutional issues notwithstanding, is no easy feat. This limitation can be considered as a strong barrier of obstruction that is nearly impossible to circumvent.
It is irrefutable that founders made the document difficult to alter for a reason. Those who espouse views to the contrary do not seek to consider the document “living” because it can be changed; they strive to misinterpret specific clauses within the document to justify actions of an almost unlimited variety (authority for wars, minumum wage, etc), using such content to draw upon a vast reservoir of untapped power. Thomas Jefferson wrote that by doing so, Congress “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The tendency to do so was considered constitutionally erroneous and invalid.
Wait, wait, wait a minute....!
Did this headline read "Demand... driving up prices..."? Demand??... D-e-m-a-n-d??
I thought prices were only driven up by greedy real estate developers and oil companies; and I thought somebody connected with gubbamint could keep those prices "affordable"...
What happend to the "Yes we can" utopia we were promised???
Others opinions are "truthiness" while those with which you agree are "clarification"? How ammusing! Also, there can be no "rebuttal", only an "onslaught" by weak-minded hicks with an ax to grind... probably because of their racist views toward our current president...
It seems Mr. Farquhar has a somewhat "opinionated" view of history as well, because the Bill of Rights was, for all intents and purposes, part of the original Constitution, rather than an "add-on" in the distant future of the "living doccument".
Here is how it went down:
Many of the state conventions ratified the Constitution, but called for amendments specifically protecting individual rights from abridgement by the federal government. The debate raged for months. By June of 1788, 9 states had ratified the Constitution, ensuring it would go into effect for those 9 states. However, key states including Virginia and New York had not ratified. James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, knew that grave doubts would be cast on the Constitution if those states (the home states of several of its chief architects, including Madison himself) did not adopt it.
During the ratification debate in Virginia, Madison promised that a bill of rights would be added after ratification. His promise reassured the convention and the Constitution was approved in that state by the narrowest margin. New York soon followed, but submitted proposed amendments. Two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, refused to ratify without a bill of rights. A year later in June of 1789, Madison proposed a series of amendments to be debated in the first Congress.
In short, there would have been NO Constitution (or USA) if not for the absolute assurance by Madison of the Bill of Rights more-or-less immediate implementation. So referring to them as the first ten examples of a nations willingness to "liquify" the Constitution is absolutely WRONG, Mr Farquhar.
Alexis de Tocqueville did indeed accurately prophesy of where the American gubbamint would go when he said:
"It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd".
"Does standing during the national anthem mean you support foreign wars that... ?"
No. It means that you have the brains to recognize that you are blessed to live in the greatest nation God ever gave to men, that you are grateful to Him for such provision, and that you are grateful to those who showed the greatest love a man can show for others by laying down their life for another.
Further, it means you have the increasingly rare common decency to keep your stupid mouths shut and show a basic respect for orators, presenters, and those gathered at public events; that you understand the concept of civility and the importance of history, service, and respect for the time and values of others.
What it DOES NOT mean is that it's all about YOU, YOUR opinion of the latest blunder our nation may or may not have made, or that this is the proper venue to inject pollitical opinions by showing disrespect for your fellow countrymen.
Easily predictable consequences of forcing economics through regulation, taxation and other means of coercion. Many will never learn, and those who already have will continue to take full advantage of that fact.
Airline has been playing both Routt County and vacationing passengers like a $3 fiddle for years and is still calling the tune.
One of the most absurd shakedowns I've ever experienced from an airline was by United on an attempt to board an almost empty 11am flight back home from DIA. Even though the 11am plane was almost empty, they insisted I wait for my 3pm flight or pay $75 to change to the earlier flight. If I was a vacationer, and if I heard that county taxpayers were subsidizing these jackasses and letting them pull this nonsense with their guests, I'd never want to return.
United was essentially robbing your vacationer of either $75 in spending money, or of the half day skiing that would be missed by waiting till 3pm. Either way, the taxpayers and businesses were losing that $$$ to United and upsetting their travelers to boot.
These operational issues are NEVER addressed in negotiations and when the ink is dry the one who is in the catbird's seat fills in all the little fine-print to their advantage.
Seldom do government bodies drive the kind of hard bargains that the private sector does every day. When government deals with private sector on the public's behalf, the public usually loses. That is why this is so predictable. Yet so many people insist on returning again and again to the hot stove with their already burned fingers. They refuse to accept the economic reality of their regional isolation, and insist they can touch that stove if they are somehow just a little more clever next time.
If you want to be clever about access to the rest of the world, move to the rest of the world.
Few of them realize that ISIS, when fully empowered, would outlaw soccer.
Similarly, few Americans who chant for "sustainability" realize that ski lifts, beer, mtn bikes and football are NOT on the final sustainability menu.
That's what we need...
With a big fat lie printed right on the side of the vehicle. "Zero Emissions"
It's not that Casey paid for the path. That's irrelevent. However, common practice IS and perhaps they likely DID donate it to the City upon completion, who now will be forever responsible for its maintenance and liability... maybe, I don't know. Was the paths sub-grade and paving designed to carry continuous traffic of this sort? I don't know.
Requirements of providing curbing, sidewalks and paths to nowhere, oversized culverts, sewerlines, oversized water lines, etc, for municipllities, for no good reason, at considerable expense, is standard operating procedure for developers. Welcome to the club!
In case anyone wonders why costs are so high...? It ain't always the "greedy developers" which some bumper stickers advocate shooting.
And the rules DO change. One municipality I dealt with used to require 2.5 parking spaces per unit. This was NON NEGOTIABLE! Today, that same municipality requires NONE! This is because they realized that excessive parking was going unused (as was their bus service at considerable embarrasment) while the un-needed paving caused excessive stormwater runoff, as well as decreased the number of units which could go on the site (read: less property tax/acre and more "urban sprawl)..
It's been my experience as a developer elsewhere that municipalities (every one I've ever dealt with) extract infrastructure (above and beyond what is necessary for the proposed project) from developers and anyone else they can get "on the hook" because it builds their net wealth at someone elses expense. And, yes, I do mean in a "bribe" or "take it or leave it" sort of way. (not saying that is the case here) If a home costs $200,000 or if that same home costs $400,000 because of tighter regulations and excessive infrastructure demands ... Which one is easier to justify a property tax of... say... $5,000/yr?? Where is the incentive for municipalities to help developers cut costs?? NOWHERE! Therefore, common sense sometimes does indeed go out the window.
Last login: Sunday, October 19, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.