RIP 4th Amendment..

[csgators]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........

 

Sure it does but the Constitution also gives the government the power to raise and maintain armies. I personally abhor drafts but that doesn't give me the right to project that onto the 13th when no one advocating the 13th at the time it was passed wished to include it. Even George Washington wanted the continental congress to impose a draft, something that they refused to do for several reasons. If enough people want to ban a the draft they should get together and pass an amendment.

[HeyYou]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........

 

Sure it does but the Constitution also gives the government the power to raise and maintain armies. I personally abhor drafts but that doesn't give me the right to project that onto the 13th when no one advocating the 13th at the time it was passed wished to include it. Even George Washington wanted the continental congress to impose a draft, something that they refused to do for several reasons. If enough people want to ban a the draft they should get together and pass an amendment.

 

Not so much of an issue anymore. Draft went away shortly after the end of the Vietnam 'war'. Since, we have had an all volunteer military. Kinda surprised me how well that worked, given that we were involved in several wars, and the military can Still be rather picky about whom the accept. I think registration is still a requirement..... not 100% sure on that though......

[marharth]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........

 

Sure it does but the Constitution also gives the government the power to raise and maintain armies. I personally abhor drafts but that doesn't give me the right to project that onto the 13th when no one advocating the 13th at the time it was passed wished to include it. Even George Washington wanted the continental congress to impose a draft, something that they refused to do for several reasons. If enough people want to ban a the draft they should get together and pass an amendment.

 

Replying to this quote since its easier for me.

 

The Arizona law was signed into effect with the backing on right wing judges, a left wing judge made a ruling on it to stop it.

 

"Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude"

It was to stop slavery yes, but that should just mean slavery on a private level and not a federal level?

 

The draft forced you to work for the military, that seems to me like a kind of slavery.

 

While the constitution does give the power to raise and maintain armies, it should not conflict with other amendments.

 

Which is back to my main point, the original intent may not be entirely clear.

 

@HeyYou The draft was never made illegal, it can be brought back into effect at any time by congress.

[HeyYou]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........

 

Sure it does but the Constitution also gives the government the power to raise and maintain armies. I personally abhor drafts but that doesn't give me the right to project that onto the 13th when no one advocating the 13th at the time it was passed wished to include it. Even George Washington wanted the continental congress to impose a draft, something that they refused to do for several reasons. If enough people want to ban a the draft they should get together and pass an amendment.

 

Replying to this quote since its easier for me.

 

The Arizona law was signed into effect with the backing on right wing judges, a left wing judge made a ruling on it to stop it.

 

"Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude"

It was to stop slavery yes, but that should just mean slavery on a private level and not a federal level?

 

The draft forced you to work for the military, that seems to me like a kind of slavery.

 

While the constitution does give the power to raise and maintain armies, it should not conflict with other amendments.

 

Which is back to my main point, the original intent may not be entirely clear.

 

@HeyYou The draft was never made illegal, it can be brought back into effect at any time by congress.

 

Yep, I am aware that is wasn't deemed 'illegal', or, 'unconstitutional', the government just stopped using it. At the time, there wasn't really any more reason to have it, as we weren't involved in any combat actions anywhere..... so, folks were more than happy to join up.

[csgators]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........

 

Sure it does but the Constitution also gives the government the power to raise and maintain armies. I personally abhor drafts but that doesn't give me the right to project that onto the 13th when no one advocating the 13th at the time it was passed wished to include it. Even George Washington wanted the continental congress to impose a draft, something that they refused to do for several reasons. If enough people want to ban a the draft they should get together and pass an amendment.

 

Replying to this quote since its easier for me.

 

The Arizona law was signed into effect with the backing on right wing judges, a left wing judge made a ruling on it to stop it.

 

"Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude"

It was to stop slavery yes, but that should just mean slavery on a private level and not a federal level?

 

The draft forced you to work for the military, that seems to me like a kind of slavery.

 

While the constitution does give the power to raise and maintain armies, it should not conflict with other amendments.

 

Which is back to my main point, the original intent may not be entirely clear.

 

@HeyYou The draft was never made illegal, it can be brought back into effect at any time by congress.

 

Time to ban income taxes, clearly involuntary servitude.

[marharth]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........

 

Sure it does but the Constitution also gives the government the power to raise and maintain armies. I personally abhor drafts but that doesn't give me the right to project that onto the 13th when no one advocating the 13th at the time it was passed wished to include it. Even George Washington wanted the continental congress to impose a draft, something that they refused to do for several reasons. If enough people want to ban a the draft they should get together and pass an amendment.

 

Replying to this quote since its easier for me.

 

The Arizona law was signed into effect with the backing on right wing judges, a left wing judge made a ruling on it to stop it.

 

"Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude"

It was to stop slavery yes, but that should just mean slavery on a private level and not a federal level?

 

The draft forced you to work for the military, that seems to me like a kind of slavery.

 

While the constitution does give the power to raise and maintain armies, it should not conflict with other amendments.

 

Which is back to my main point, the original intent may not be entirely clear.

 

@HeyYou The draft was never made illegal, it can be brought back into effect at any time by congress.

 

Time to ban income taxes, clearly involuntary servitude.

That argument could be made actually...

 

Seeing as income taxes require you to have a job, and part of the money is given away, yes.

[csgators]

 

Time to ban income taxes, clearly involuntary servitude.

That argument could be made actually...

 

Seeing as income taxes require you to have a job, and part of the money is given away, yes.

 

Oh, it can more than be made. I have been meaning to create a new thread on the topic but haven't gotten to it yet.

[HeyYou]

Time to ban income taxes, clearly involuntary servitude.

That argument could be made actually...

 

Seeing as income taxes require you to have a job, and part of the money is given away, yes.

 

Oh, it can more than be made. I have been meaning to create a new thread on the topic but haven't gotten to it yet.

 

Actually, you aren't required to have a job.... if you don't make any money, you don't have to pay any taxes. Rather easy. :D

[csgators]

Time to ban income taxes, clearly involuntary servitude.

That argument could be made actually...

 

Seeing as income taxes require you to have a job, and part of the money is given away, yes.

 

Oh, it can more than be made. I have been meaning to create a new thread on the topic but haven't gotten to it yet.

 

Actually, you aren't required to have a job.... if you don't make any money, you don't have to pay any taxes. Rather easy. :D

 

Yep, I should just sit back and let everyone else pay for me.

[HeyYou]

Time to ban income taxes, clearly involuntary servitude.

That argument could be made actually...

 

Seeing as income taxes require you to have a job, and part of the money is given away, yes.

 

Oh, it can more than be made. I have been meaning to create a new thread on the topic but haven't gotten to it yet.

 

Actually, you aren't required to have a job.... if you don't make any money, you don't have to pay any taxes. Rather easy. :D

 

Yep, I should just sit back and let everyone else pay for me.

 

Depends on the lifestyle you want. Me? I like having a roof over my head, and a warm place to sleep. Not to mention eating on a somewhat regular basis....