(From the articles from the Straight Dops) I see the arugment that could be made by some, if in fact Ohio was not officially a state, they had no ratification vote. That argument however would hold no weight, as 42 other states also voted to ratify the 16th Amendment(even more than would be needed in 2009. Only 36 states were needed to ratify then)

 

As for the We the People site, I don't have time to look for the evidence that they present right now, but will soon and comment on that.

 

A natural born citizen did not bring the admendment to the floor, considering by strick law that OHIO was not part of the United States until 1953. That is a point in history that conservatives or liberals can not argue.

 

Therefore the admendment should be abolished or presented again. This would clear up any confussion.

 

I just think that this is very interesting! I see so many interpretations (sp) on the constitution so I wish to do the same.

 

I hope this makes more people think about the constitution.

A natural born citizen did not bring the admendment to the floor, considering by strick law that OHIO was not part of the United States until 1953. That is a point in history that conservatives or liberals can not argue.

 

Therefore the admendment should be abolished or presented again. This would clear up any confussion.

 

I just think that this is very interesting! I see so many interpretations (sp) on the constitution so I wish to do the same.

 

I hope this makes more people think about the constitution.

But the President did not, and cannot by the Constitution introduce the Amendment. Republican Congressman Sereno Payne of NY was the person who introduced the Amendment. NY did not have state issues such as Ohio. In fact, if a Constitutioanl Amendment ever passes, the President has no official action on it. He can reccomend to congress to introduce it, but the Executive branch has no power over wich Amendments are introduced or passed.

Check this out:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionTax.htm

Check this out:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionTax.htm

A little bit at a time, as I read the document provided:

 

WHEREAS, such Petition for Redress was subsequently ignored

 

The Constitution never says that Petitions have to be answered, only your right to petition the goverenment is protected. When I was young, I used to pray to have the pretty girl in middle school go out with me. It never happened. I asked my mom if God really does answer prayers, how come he didn't answer this one. My mom said God does answer all prayers, sometimes the answer, however, is no.

 

WHEREAS, on February 22, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States committed treason to the Constitution by refusing to hear the First Amendment case, We The People v. United States, (case No. 07-681) calling for a judicial declaration - for the first time in history - of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the “accountability clause” of the Constitution – that is, the last ten words of the First Amendment.

 

This is absolutley ridiculous, IMO. There is no directive from the Constitution to the Supreme Court on hearing cases. They decide what cases they hear. If they don't hear a case, they don't have to even divulge the reason why they refuse to hear it.

 

WHEREAS, if the Creator has, in fact, gratuitously provided, equipped and enriched the People with Rights, it follows that those Rights belong to the People and to the Creator, and it follows that any affront to the Constitution (as when government violates an unalienable Right) is an affront to the Creator, and

 

WHEREAS, if our Rights come from the Creator, only the Creator can frustrate and deny or defeat our Rights -- that is, government cannot abridge what God alone has manifest and bestowed upon the People, and

 

Mixing up the Constitution with the Decleration of Independence. Nothing written in the Decleration of Independence is valid law, unless it is also written in the Constitution

 

WHEREAS, the People of this nation are entitled, by Right, to a system of taxation that does NOT violate any of their constitutionally protected unalienable Rights,

 

This I agree with. But if the 16th Amendment is a part of the Constitution it is Constitutional.

 

More to come later...

The Tea Parties will have no effect whatsoever in Washington. We are asking for DC to release some of the power it has obtained from the states and from us, and that just ain't going to happen. The only thing that would make a difference is an absolute slaughter of the incumbents on election day.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

Which will never happen because we are sheep.

So because they don't agree with the left, they don't have a clue what they are protesting?

 

Actually I always thought the democrat side was supposed to be "the cool side" and the republican side was the establishment.

 

 

I have no idea where you got that from my post. I think a lot of people are participating because it's cool to participate, not because they actually feel one way or another about it. I didn't say anything about politics, parties or anything else.

 

Once again, though, someone is trying to pigeonhole me by deliberately misinterpreting my words, or twisting their intent. Not the first, won't be the last.

:puke: Seriously, liberal leaning people don't work and are clueless about issues. Is this the third grade?:ohbrother:

 

No need to spin and twist. I believe that my message was quite clear- and quite factual. Surely you don't suggest otherwise. Liberals could never win elections without the non-taxpayers and non-contributors of our society who make up a plurality of your constituency.

WOW. Where did you get that out of what I said?

 

1. Many (not all) Obama voters had no clue where he or any other candidate stood on issues, they voted for him simply because it was the "IN" thiong to do. To deny thst is to have ones head very deeply buried in the sand. Do you truly believe otherwise?

 

2. The post I quoted (from someone whose opinion I respect) made much the same assertation about the people that would be attending the so-called tea parties.

 

In Re: #1

 

You are correct. Many millions of our "citizens" vote solely on the basis of who will give them the most freebies. They are always in search of the Sugar Plum Fairy and they may have found it in the "rock star" Obama.

For the people that I know personally who are attending the one in Louisville today, yes. That said, it is probable that it is not the case for many involved but a little protest never hurt anyone.

 

Except Kent State but they were a bunch of hippies anyway,

 

 

I know you've already responded to this but I've got say, Wow! You couldn't have been more wrong on that one.

 

One Student was an ROTC student. That's right. A future leader in the armed services. He was killed because the Guard was marching back up the hill away from the confrontation and gave the notion that the crisis was past. He then proceeded to his class only to be struck down by a bullet when the Guard turned to fire at the top of the hill.

 

Another was a young coed going between classes. Like the above she thought the danger had passed and was going from one class to the other.

 

The other 2 were much more actively involved in the protest. The other 9 that were wounded fell in both categories as well.

 

You were way off on this one Peprock.

Not all, but most. Regarding your references to Kent State, having lived through that period and indirectly knowing people shot at Kent State (friend of a friend type of thing), I'll submit that you have no clue about Kent State. They did not do anything to desrve being shot. I have long maintained that when people woke up to find that the government was shooting their children, the end of the Vietnam war was inevitable. Kent State (and the much less publicized Jackson State) were the beginning of the end for the Vietnam war.

 

 

I know you've already responded to this but I've got say, Wow! You couldn't have been more wrong on that one.

 

One Student was an ROTC student. That's right. A future leader in the armed services. He was killed because the Guard was marching back up the hill away from the confrontation and gave the notion that the crisis was past. He then proceeded to his class only to be struck down by a bullet when the Guard turned to fire at the top of the hill.

 

Another was a young coed going between classes. Like the above she thought the danger had passed and was going from one class to the other.

 

The other 2 were much more actively involved in the protest. The other 9 that were wounded fell in both categories as well.

 

You were way off on this one Peprock.

 

Dear Christ! It was a joke that was followed by an indifferent remark to Clyde. I was NOT saying "haha, stupid idealist hippies got what they deserved." There is nothing in this world that is above being made fun of.

 

I was actually going to go in depth on a response to everyone's thoughts on my comment later but it looks like I need to defuse the bloody situation. I know that of the 4 people killed only 2 were protesters. The other two deaths I find to be quite unfortunate.

 

Every attempt to lawfully and peaceably disperse the crowd had been made. Short of taking each one by the hand and gently leading them away. The campus police attempted to get the crowd to disperse, and they were pelted with rocks. The order to disperse the crowd was later upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as lawful. The National Guard then arrived and again ordered the crowd to disperse, after another refusal and again being pelted by rocks they fired tear gas (pretty much the only non-lethal method they had at the time) into the crowd.The crowd then threw the tear gas BACK at the Guardsmen. This led to the confusing episode where the guardsmen advanced with bayonets affixed and tried to chase the crowd off, after stopping at a practice field and attempting to leave, while again being pelted with rocks and tear gas cannisters. After they left the practice field some soldiers turned and fired. Why they fired I don't know. I could understand some of them being scared of a mob throwing all sorts of object, not unlike the British soldiers in Boston in 1770, although the situations are not inherently congruent.

 

The situation could have been better handled by all parties involved, I am aware of that. I would say that they even if they should have fired their weapons it should have been in the air so as to intimidate the crowd to disperse AS ordered.

 

Despite all this, I will not however be demonized for a joke and the fact that I look at history and politics amorally. There are few events I look at in human history that I will actually apply the terms "wrong" or "evil" to as I am here to study and relay not judge. That is not my job, nor is it my intent. As such I am as indifferent to this event as I am the Somme and the Inquisition.

I have no idea where you got that from my post. I think a lot of people are participating because it's cool to participate, not because they actually feel one way or another about it. I didn't say anything about politics, parties or anything else.

 

Once again, though, someone is trying to pigeonhole me by deliberately misinterpreting my words, or twisting their intent. Not the first, won't be the last.

 

A very good friend of mine starting college at Morehead 3-4 years ago.

Called him one night to see what he was doing.

Said he was at the President's house protesting. He might be on television.

I asked him what he was protesting.

Said he had no clue, they were just told it would be FREE PIZZA!!!!!!!

 

I thought it was hilarious.:lol:

Dear Christ! It was a joke that was followed by an indifferent remark to Clyde. I was NOT saying "haha, stupid idealist hippies got what they deserved." There is nothing in this world that is above being made fun of.

 

I was actually going to go in depth on a response to everyone's thoughts on my comment later but it looks like I need to defuse the bloody situation. I know that of the 4 people killed only 2 were protesters. The other two deaths I find to be quite unfortunate.

 

Every attempt to lawfully and peaceably disperse the crowd had been made. Short of taking each one by the hand and gently leading them away. The campus police attempted to get the crowd to disperse, and they were pelted with rocks. The order to disperse the crowd was later upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as lawful. The National Guard then arrived and again ordered the crowd to disperse, after another refusal and again being pelted by rocks they fired tear gas (pretty much the only non-lethal method they had at the time) into the crowd.The crowd then threw the tear gas BACK at the Guardsmen. This led to the confusing episode where the guardsmen advanced with bayonets affixed and tried to chase the crowd off, after stopping at a practice field and attempting to leave, while again being pelted with rocks and tear gas cannisters. After they left the practice field some soldiers turned and fired. Why they fired I don't know. I could understand some of them being scared of a mob throwing all sorts of object, not unlike the British soldiers in Boston in 1770, although the situations are not inherently congruent.

 

The situation could have been better handled by all parties involved, I am aware of that. I would say that they even if they should have fired their weapons it should have been in the air so as to intimidate the crowd to disperse AS ordered.

 

Despite all this, I will not however be demonized for a joke and the fact that I look at history and politics amorally. There are few events I look at in human history that I will actually apply the terms "wrong" or "evil" to as I am here to study and relay not judge. That is not my job, nor is it my intent. As such I am as indifferent to this event as I am the Somme and the Inquisition.

 

 

Sorry, because it did seem that I was one of those to demonize your response.

 

BTW, your facts are a little off I believe. The campus police had no jurisdiction as Marshal Law had been implemented by the Governor of Ohio. The Guard was on campus around the ROTC building from Saturday through the shootings on Monday. The Guard was pelted with their own canisters and rocks and such. However they marched up a hill, over the crest, down the hill and then stopped at the lower lot, practice field. They threatened to fire then but did not. They then withdrew back to the crest of the hill when they turned to fire, thus giving the appearance to many that the crisis was over and all would be well.

 

I'm certan the young guardsmen felt threatened but their closest shooting victim was 75 feet (one of the wounded) and the closest killed about 275 feet and beyond. Hardly threats to armed soldiers.

 

I've taken too much time and derailed a good thread already. I'm sorry for my tirades on what should have just been a passing remark. My apologies Pep rock. I always like to read the stuff you post around here.

I'm not here to make you feel comfortable.

 

I don't shed a tear for it, I am not personally sad that it happened. It happened, plain and simple. I am indifferent to it because I was not involved and it happened almost 40 years ago. The loss of life wasn't necessarily good, but I don't assign good or evil motives to the past except in very specific occasions.

 

 

 

Good to know. Be sure and let me know when one of your loved ones is tragically killed, and I'll be sure and make some sort of snide remark about it. For some us, May 4, is a date we'll never forget.

Good to know. Be sure and let me know when one of your loved ones is tragically killed, and I'll be sure and make some sort of snide remark about it. For some us, May 4, is a date we'll never forget.

 

That is entirely your choice, if you want I'll even set you up so you can knock it down.

 

I am, and always HAVE been, of the mindset that anything can be made fun of or satirized. Why is it okay for Mel Brooks or Monty Python to make jokes about the Spanish Inquisition, but people want to have me scourged for making a joke regarding something that had a far lower body count?

Sorry, because it did seem that I was one of those to demonize your response.

 

BTW, your facts are a little off I believe. The campus police had no jurisdiction as Marshal Law had been implemented by the Governor of Ohio. The Guard was on campus around the ROTC building from Saturday through the shootings on Monday. The Guard was pelted with their own canisters and rocks and such. However they marched up a hill, over the crest, down the hill and then stopped at the lower lot, practice field. They threatened to fire then but did not. They then withdrew back to the crest of the hill when they turned to fire, thus giving the appearance to many that the crisis was over and all would be well.

 

I'm certan the young guardsmen felt threatened but their closest shooting victim was 75 feet (one of the wounded) and the closest killed about 275 feet and beyond. Hardly threats to armed soldiers.

 

I've taken too much time and derailed a good thread already. I'm sorry for my tirades on what should have just been a passing remark. My apologies Pep rock. I always like to read the stuff you post around here.

 

All is well, I just wanted to make sure the waters were clear since I hadn't been on since this morning.

 

I omitted certain parts for the sake of brevity, I knew it was going to be a long post and did not want to belabor the point. :thumb: