Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $2,837
3%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 3% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by KrisKrinkle

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage: Group marriage is the past—not the future—of matrimony.

    07/01/2015 8:01:30 PM PDT · 43 of 78
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind

    “By allowing high-status men to hoard wives...”

    Why think that men will be able to hoard wives? If a man can have more than one wife, a woman can have more than one husband. If a man has two wives, each of the wives can have at least one other husband.

    I wonder what the husbands would be to each other. Husbands-in-Law by virtue of having the same wife? “Brother Husbands” reflecting the term “Sister Wives” I’ve heard used in regard to the multiple wives of one husband?

    If the first man in the chain has two wives, and each of the wives has another husband, and each of those husbands has another wife, is the first man in the chain related to those last wives by marriage?

    My head hurts, not to mention my heart.

  • Perhaps we should seek an annullment of our masrriage to the government

    06/30/2015 12:17:05 PM PDT · 11 of 12
    KrisKrinkle to knarf
    “Do you have a better idea that might come to fruition before I die ?”

    A “better idea” than what? Separation? If so, separation of what? If it's separation of people, what territory do they occupy? If it's separation of the states, on what basis? Separating on the basis of blue vs red won't work because when you look within the States there's too much purple. (I think that if there is the equivalent of another Civil War at won't be State against State, but neighborhood against neighborhood.)

    I've come to think there has been an organized or unorganized impetus for the dissolution of the United States since at least the 1860’s. Separation means a big win for those who've pushed for that I believe those people, with the exception of some of their mistaken fellow travelers and useful idiots, are not on the side of liberty.

    And if they do get that big win, they will consolidate within whatever area they control, then come after the rest of us. Their efforts will not end. It will be a continuation of “nothing good happen(ing)...very slowly” from our point of view. They will seek to defeat us in detail.

    That brings us to “come to fruition before I die”. You're pretty much correct: “...we've seen nothing good happen in America and it happened very slowly”. Our adversaries take the long view. (As I wrote, I've come to think there has been an impetus for the dissolution of the United States since at least the 1860’s.)

    Many on our side do not seem to take the long view. They want what they want now, rather than taking what they can get and then going after more when they can. Yes, I know: “Incrementalism”. And it has a bad name. But it's how our adversaries got to where they are now.

    So, I don't know that I have any ideas that might come to fruition before you die.

    But seeds may be planted.

    One such is to eliminate the idea of “quitting” by whatever name. Certainly one may need to take a break from the fray, but the fight as a whole must go on and others should not be discouraged from continuing it. (Seems to work for the other side.)

    So, what are some things we should not quit?

    One is the United States.

    Another is “The Government”, whatever you mean by that term. (There is no “The Government”. There are the Federal Government, State Governments, County Governments, City Governments, Township Governments and I don't know what all else. Certainly they interconnect at some points, but not to the point that they are “The Government”.

    Some define “The Government” in terms of the people doing the governing. I think of the government as a structure, with people occupying positions within it, said people being replaceable without tossing the whole government structure. A problem is that our adversaries work to place people within government in order to use government as a tool in pursuit of their ends. Conservatives tend to equate government with evil, rather than as a tool (”a”, not the only) to be used in pursuit of Conservative ends.

    We need to take back government, and how do they do that? It takes the long view to do so, because the start is at the bottom. I recently read a city government official said that it doesn't matter what party is in charge of city government because they are too concerned with filling pot holes, snow removal, garbage collection, etc to be concerned with party issues. But it does matter because that's where they get their start and work their way up.

    Part of me wants to write more, but I'm done...for now.

  • What SCOTUSCare Means for Second Amendment Supporters

    06/30/2015 10:18:48 AM PDT · 9 of 11
    KrisKrinkle to marktwain

    “The only hope for a return to Constitutional restraints is an end to the current administration.”

    I don’t believe the end of the current administration will be enough.

    Our side has substantially but not completely lost Academia and the Media, and other areas of society are compromised from our point of view. I’m not so sure a change in administration by itself will result in a return to Constitutional restraint.

    I don’t maintain our cause is hopeless or that we should not fight for what we believe, but that more than a change in administration is necessary.

  • Gay Marriage Ruling Paves The Way for Concealed Carry National Reciprocity

    06/30/2015 9:39:53 AM PDT · 25 of 26
    KrisKrinkle to all the best

    Plus 1.

    Fifty years ago few would have thought the recent SCOTUS decision would happen. But the other side keeps fighting and too many who are supposed to be on our side keep wanting to quit.

  • Perhaps we should seek an annullment of our masrriage to the government

    06/30/2015 9:10:55 AM PDT · 8 of 12
    KrisKrinkle to knarf

    “The difficult part of all this is that ... THIS is just what ozero wants”

    Looks like you want it too, along with a number of people who post here. That’s a position that’s more radical than conservative.

  • Solomon: Businesses Must Be Open ‘For Everybody,’ Religious Objections ‘Non-American’

    06/29/2015 2:32:10 PM PDT · 20 of 46
    KrisKrinkle to Sir Napsalot

    We’ll have to fight like liberals then, won’t we? They don’t give up.

  • Solomon: Businesses Must Be Open ‘For Everybody,’ Religious Objections ‘Non-American’

    06/29/2015 2:21:37 PM PDT · 11 of 46
    KrisKrinkle to Sir Napsalot

    How’s that work for Facebook, Twitter, etc, any business that refuses their service to somebody for saying something they don’t like?

  • Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights

    06/28/2015 9:20:58 PM PDT · 31 of 33
    KrisKrinkle to Zakeet

    If the same sex marriage crusade had been as full of quitters as this thread, they’d never have gotten so far.

  • SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity

    06/27/2015 4:07:52 PM PDT · 37 of 47
    KrisKrinkle to Erik Latranyi

    “Quit, secede, runaway, don’t bother trying.” So many naysayers supposedly on our side. It’s a wonder we don’t lose more often than we do.

  • YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

    06/27/2015 3:31:17 PM PDT · 34 of 46
    KrisKrinkle to Libloather

    What about all the other licenses, permits, etc.

    If I have a Barber’s, Beautician’s, Nurse’s or Doctor’s license in one state, should not that be recognized in all the other states as a liberty issue (per this SCOTUS decision) with no need to get a license in any state to which I move? What about lawyers?

  • Electric Cars: Not So Environmentally Friendly After All?

    06/27/2015 11:55:54 AM PDT · 44 of 45
    KrisKrinkle to Sherman Logan

    “Did you read Oath of Fealty?”

    I’m pretty sure I’ve read it and that I’ve seen a copy of it around here, but I don’t specifically remember it. I won’t say I’ve read all of Niven’s writing, but I’ve read a lot of it over the years. My paperback copy of “Ringworld” has a price of 95 cents from when I bought it new.

    And then there’s the fact that I’ve been known to buy multiple copies of something, not remembering that I’ve read it till I get started on the new copy :)

  • Electric Cars: Not So Environmentally Friendly After All?

    06/27/2015 8:25:41 AM PDT · 15 of 45
    KrisKrinkle to Sherman Logan

    “On the gripping hand...”

    I find it interesting to see someone besides me use that phrase outside the novel.

  • Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): SCOTUS Decides on Same-Sex Marriage for all 50 States

    06/26/2015 11:07:04 PM PDT · 18 of 20
    KrisKrinkle to expatguy; tallyhoe

    “Secede from the union”

    Dissolution of the union—Seems like something the Democrats/Socialists/Leftists have been working for since at least the 1860’s.

  • If we are to “cleanse” America of its Confederate past let’s start with the Democrat Party

    06/25/2015 12:15:56 PM PDT · 18 of 22
    KrisKrinkle to Oldpuppymax

    “...the Confederacy’s successors: The Democrat Party.”

    Arguably, the Democrat Party’s efforts span the time before, during and after the Confederacy.

    Perhaps the Confederacy was a failed effort on the part of the Democrat Party rather than the Democrat Party being a successor to the Confederacy.

  • New Pentagon Manual Declares Journalists Can Be Enemy Combatants

    06/25/2015 7:23:39 AM PDT · 17 of 27
    KrisKrinkle to null and void

    For everyone’s bedtime reading, and maybe to improve their comments:

    Department of Defense Law of War Manual:

    http://www.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf

  • The ludicrous, self-defeating hypocrisy of flying the Confederate battle flag

    06/24/2015 9:19:46 AM PDT · 14 of 63
    KrisKrinkle to all the best

    Possibly, the Confederate Flag, the Gadsden Flag and the “Come And Take It” Flag are needed as reminders that people can be pushed too far.

  • Is the Supreme Court Going to Chip Away at Heller?

    05/30/2015 1:47:45 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    KrisKrinkle to marktwain
    Every right has limits; those limits are usually related to direct harm to others or the interference with others rights.

    That's a statement I can support. (While I don't believe so, note that in the minds of some, a regulation that requires "(1) 'the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice,' or (2) '[t]he handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18'" might meet the "related to direct harm to others" criteria because it would be more easily accessable to those who would harm others.)

    My concern is the regular, reflexive, "Shall not be infringed" response, without obvious thought to what it is that is being infringed other than the undefined string of words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms."

    I believe we need to provide more thought on the meaning of those words in order to advance our argument in defense of the right. I know we can't convince the hardcore opposition, but I think there are those who are not among the hardcore opposition who might be convinced. Saying "Shall not be infringed" seems kind of like saying "It's not fair" when no rationale is given as to why it's an infringement or why it's not fair. It doesn't go anywhere except with people who already agree.

    And your right to position the tip of your nose ends where I'm swinging my arm.

  • Is the Supreme Court Going to Chip Away at Heller?

    05/30/2015 12:06:03 PM PDT · 5 of 8
    KrisKrinkle to marktwain
    This goes directly against "Shall not be Infringed" and instead makes the court rulings a game of "How much infringement can we get away with." As such, it is a direct challenge to Heller.

    From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER:

    Held:

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    So SCOTUS held that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" which means that there are limits to it.

    That means a response of "Shall not be Infringed" is ineffective against something determined to be outside the limits of the Second Amendment, something outside the limits of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms."

    In turn, that means it won't be a matter of "How much infringement can we get away with", but a matter of "How much can we confine the limits of the Second Amendment, of 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms', so they can claim that, legally, there is no infringement.

  • Taxpayers puzzled by anti-fraud measures; ‘Is this a scam?’ (Ohio)

    02/13/2015 10:27:25 PM PST · 3 of 12
    KrisKrinkle to Whenifhow

    Ok, it’s legit. But how does the State official asking the questions know the correct answers?

    I suppose the answer to “What brand of car do you have?” can be gotten from the BMV, but “How long is your mortgage”? How is that info accessible to said State official?

    And “How old is your grandchild”? How does this State question asker know I have grandchildren, let alone how old they are?

    Does the State official have to pull the info from several databases, or is there one concise file on each citizen?

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 7:41:23 PM PDT · 44 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins
    I dealt above board with the issues I suggested

    In your post 37 you made the following statements:

    "...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."

    "...there is no previous information to that effect..."

    "...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."

    In my post 40 I wrote: "So, can you prove your statements:" followed by the list of your statements recorded directly above this paragraph. I was not asking about the "epileptic" or the "wife" parts. I was asking about your statements.

    You responded with your post 41 which I found accurate enough, but evasive because it did not respond to what I was asking about in my post 40.

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 5:07:50 PM PDT · 42 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins

    Accurate enough, but evasive.

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 5:02:02 PM PDT · 22 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to William Tell

    What I take from your post is that you have no thoughtful answers for my questions, so you’re going to go off on tangents, make false attributions to me, try to get me to defend a case I didn’t make, and in general obfuscate, undoubtedly so you can play “William Tell wins”.

    As they say: “No Thanks.”

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 1:23:12 PM PDT · 20 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to William Tell
    How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?

    I was responding to the question "Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office ...?" by pointing out that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an undefined series of words, trying to show that the thing in regard to which they are accused of breaching their oath is undefined and needs better definition before we can accuse anyone of a breach in regard to it.

    You wrote "virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey" but I thought the case at hand was about self defense carry outside the home in New Jersey, which is not quite the same thing.

    What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

    As I recall, they were thinking the government was coming to take the ordnance, munitions etc. held in their armory. I don't recall that they were thinking the government was coming to take anything from their homes, their houses.

    Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.

    I didn't know the case at hand was about confiscation beyond any confiscation that took place when the defendant was arrested.

    My turn for questions: What is the scope-extent-definition of the words "the right of the people to bear arms"? Does one of the people who happens to be standing on the gallows awaiting execution have the right to keep and bear arms? Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner? Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?

    Regarding whatever your answers are, how do we know so just from the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 12:37:44 PM PDT · 40 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins
    Disagree.

    If you're disagreeing with "Inconclusive", okay we can disagree.

    If you're disagreeing with the rest of it, I used the word "could" to indicate possibility and therefore you seem to be disagreeing that what I posited is even possible. I suppose we can disagree on what is possible.

    I was going to just let your post go, but you wrote:

    My writing down the statement “Jesus was an epileptic” on this message board should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic.

    And:

    Additionally, since there is no previous information to that effect, then it should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case, and especially if it includes my claim written in the year 2014, many years after His having been on earth.

    So, can you prove your statements:

    "...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."

    "...there is no previous information to that effect..."

    "...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 10:03:28 AM PDT · 13 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to afsnco

    “Residents of NJ need to vote with their feet, as soon as possible.”

    They need to vote with their ballots.

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 10:02:24 AM PDT · 12 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to WhiskeyX
    Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office with regard to the Constitution and its Second Amendment mandate a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms?

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a series of words whose meaning, scope, extent, is pretty much undefined. Pro 2A folks continually emphasize "shall not be infringed" when they should put more emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed.

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 9:52:30 AM PDT · 36 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins
    1. Someone in the 500’s AD found a way to write on paper that wasn’t made until the 700’s AD.

    3. That scholars appeared to declare “authentic” words about Jesus not written down until 500 or so years after He walked on earth.

    Inconclusive. What was written in 700 AD or in 500 AD could have been a copy of something written earlier, the original of which we don't have. I could hand copy Genesis on modern paper with modern ink and that wouldn't mean the content was wrong.

    And no, I don't believe Jesus had a wife.

  • MAN STUFF: 100 Things A Real Man Doesn’t Do

    05/03/2014 4:40:07 PM PDT · 9 of 92
    KrisKrinkle to kingattax

    A real man does what ever it pleases him to do. The measure of his manhood is in why it pleases him to do so.

  • Gun Carrying Group May Not Be Only Ones Affected By Arlington Bans

    04/25/2014 7:51:10 AM PDT · 15 of 23
    KrisKrinkle to 2ndDivisionVet

    This is Texas? The fountain of conservatism and freedom to which so many want to flee?

  • Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land

    04/23/2014 7:20:20 AM PDT · 16 of 27
    KrisKrinkle to greeneyes

    “The land rightfully belongs to the people”

    By what right? Did the people buy it or inherit it? Did they conquer it? Of course if by “the people” you mean the people of the United States, not the people of an individual state, the answer to my last two questions is “yes”.

    “not to the government (state or federal).”

    We agree there.

  • Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land

    04/23/2014 7:10:46 AM PDT · 13 of 27
    KrisKrinkle to ReaganÃœberAlles

    “Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?”

    I see no good reason to agree with your premises.

    As far as I can tell, the federal government does not “possess all this land”. The United States possess all this land. The federal government is an agent of the States. Admittedly it’s out of control, but it’s still an agent. The federal government is not the United States.

    Why should this land rightfully belong to the individual states? The land was acquired and therefore owned by the United States as a group, so by what process did ownership change when a new state was created? Do we not believe in property rights or do they not apply in this situation for some reason?

  • This is easily the most reasonable definition of "social justice" I've ever seen...

    04/21/2014 11:47:59 AM PDT · 9 of 26
    KrisKrinkle to The Looking Spoon

    “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.”

  • Western states seeking ways to reclaim federal land

    04/19/2014 5:10:10 PM PDT · 43 of 50
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind
    "So, was this in violation of the intent of the constitution or not? THAT is what I want to know."

    The clear words of the Constitution are:

    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    From those words I gather that the intent of the Constitution is that Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. (I'm ignoring the words after the semicolon. They seem at second glance to be a wash anyway.)

    To me, those clear words are not clear on whether or not Congress must turn over all land which in the boundaries of a newly created state to that state at the time of the state's creation, or ever. To clarify that, we'd probably have to turn to the penumbra and in order to do that we'd have to come to a common understanding of the penumbra to include whether or not penumbra even exist, since not everyone believes in them.

    We'd also have to come to a common understanding of property and property rights. Those are discussed on this forum, but I don't remember seeing them defined very well.

    And when I say "common understanding", I mean a common understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.

    Without a reason to think otherwise, I'd have to say the answer to your question is "No", because the Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose, but doesn't say anything else about the disposition. It doesn't say all the territory within in boundary of a new state must, must not, can or can not be transferred to said state.

    As to how this squares with the Tenth Amendment, the Tenth says:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Therefore, I have to ask in what way is all this not square with the Tenth Amendment? I also have to point out that most of the new states entered the Union prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, at a time when senators where appointed by the State legislatures, so the States did have a say in the proceedings.

    I have to go for the rest of the night.

  • Western states seeking ways to reclaim federal land

    04/19/2014 11:30:46 AM PDT · 20 of 50
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind

    “Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own...”

    I haven’t seen evidence that the Federal Government is the owner. The owner is, or owners are, the United States. Each of the sovereign states has an ownership interest as far as I can tell. The Federal Government is just an (out of control) agent for the States.

    Article III, Section 3, second clause says: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    I’m not sure how the second half plays, but the first half certainly shows that the United States (not the Federal Government) retains “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.

    At the time that was mostly the Northwest Territory won from England as a result of the Revolutionary War, but later on other territory came to belong to the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of territory from Mexico after the Mexican-American War, and the Alaska purchase.

    When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.

    Now here are some things to think about:

    How can a state or group of States take as their own territory within their state boundaries with out permission of the fifty United States if said territory is owned by the United States?

    How do property rights play in this?

    What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?

  • Wherein Black People Have To Go To School With Confederates

    04/18/2014 8:11:08 AM PDT · 42 of 48
    KrisKrinkle to Altura Ct.
    The Founding Fathers wanted representation. The Confederates wanted to get their way, regardless of what "voters" wanted in new territories.

    The Founding Fathers wanted representation. The Confederates Liberals/Socialists wanted to get their way, regardless of what "voters" wanted in new territories.

    The Founding Fathers wanted representation. The Confederates Conservatives wanted to get their way, regardless of what "voters" wanted in new territories.

    Hmmm.

  • Wherein Black People Have To Go To School With Confederates

    04/18/2014 7:57:05 AM PDT · 40 of 48
    KrisKrinkle to Altura Ct.

    “...Washington who was our first federal president under our constitution — would probably roll over in his marble grave to know that a REBEL flag was displayed so prominently at a university that bears his name.”

    On the other hand, Washington was a Virginian and a rebel himself, so maybe not.

  • A Frankenstein Constitution

    04/16/2014 8:11:17 PM PDT · 39 of 75
    KrisKrinkle to Jacquerie

    Thank you for a responsive reply.

  • A Frankenstein Constitution

    04/16/2014 3:23:27 PM PDT · 14 of 75
    KrisKrinkle to Jacquerie

    Why do you think we would fair any better in preventing a convention of the states from proposing constitutional amendments that will result in an oppressive constitution than we have in preventing the rise of the anti-constitution, the unwritten Frankenstein constitution?

    Why do you think we would prevail in a convention of the states so as to correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment, thoroughly re-federalize our government with structural amendments, and subsequently reverse the oppression that we have already failed to prevent and thus allowed to happen?

    When you write “government”, do you mean the structure/organization of the government? I ask because so many people seem to mean the people who occupy positions therein rather than the structure/organization of the government and they are not the same thing.

    What do you mean by “structural amendments”?

  • Nevada follows Utah in exploring transfer of public lands

    04/14/2014 9:07:08 PM PDT · 42 of 47
    KrisKrinkle to GAFreedom
    All of that was done via treaty.

    Very good. That's the one thin thread it on which it can be hung.

    The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties...

    Not quite.

    He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

    That's not the federal government, only part of it. It's not even all of Congress since the House of Representatives is excluded.

    And

    The Congress shall have Power...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

    "Congress" includes both Houses of course. So the President with the connivance consent of the Senate could make a treaty, but if the treaty incurred a debt the House of Representatives would also have to agree...and they might not which would mean the treaty would fall apart. In other words, even though the Constitution doesn't say so, the President would need the consent of both Houses to make a treaty, a successful one anyway.

    Unless of course the Founders intended to empower the President to make, with Senate consent, a treaty incurring a debt which the House of Representatives have no choice but to agree must be paid.

    All this could be explained differently, but so far I see "done via treaty" as a thin thread to hang by.

  • Nevada follows Utah in exploring transfer of public lands

    04/14/2014 3:22:57 PM PDT · 28 of 47
    KrisKrinkle to dirtymac

    “Where in the constitution does the Feds have the right to own 40% of CA, 90% of Nevada, in the form of BLM, Nation Parks, National Reserves, Military bases. the land should be owned, managed, governed by the state.”

    Article III, Section 3, second clause says: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    I’m not sure how the second half plays, but the first half certainly shows that the United States (not the Federal Government) retains “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.

    At the time that was mostly the Northwest Territory, but later on, other territory came to belong to the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of territory from Mexico after the Mexican-American War, and the Alaska purchase.

    When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.

    Now here’s a question: What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?

  • The “Assault Weapon” Rebellion

    04/14/2014 8:13:55 AM PDT · 9 of 21
    KrisKrinkle to LucianOfSamasota

    “What else can they do?”

    They can wait.

    People aren’t going to take banned items to the range so they will lose competency and be less able to pass their knowledge and interest on to the next generation.

    They can cause extra trouble for those involved in “difficult” divorces, when an aggrieved spouse “rats them out” and wants their weapons confiscated because they feel endangered.

    They may have an extra charge to levy if banned items are uncovered in pursuit of another violation.

  • Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

    04/12/2014 4:39:20 PM PDT · 37 of 54
    KrisKrinkle to AEMILIUS PAULUS

    Are we in “violent agreement” as Jerry B. Harvey might say?

  • Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

    04/12/2014 4:16:40 PM PDT · 35 of 54
    KrisKrinkle to Kaslin

    “Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument”

    I decline to accept the premise of this argument.

  • ACLU calls Sheriff to let Muslim inmates exercise their constitutional right to religious expression

    04/05/2014 8:35:42 AM PDT · 12 of 22
    KrisKrinkle to LSUfan
    “Other inmates are allowed to attend congregational prayer. Refusing to allow Muslims to pray in a group, while allowing other inmates to engage in group prayer, is offensive and discriminatory.”

    Muslims continue to be denied access to Jumu’ah services, a weekly congregational prayer which takes place every Friday.

    I was against this till I read the above. Without a reason to do differently, all the inmates should be treated pretty much the same.

  • Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage

    04/04/2014 10:43:50 PM PDT · 14 of 19
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind

    “...but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve “marriage” for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays.”

    So far as I know, no one has tried to ‘reserve “marriage” for straights’. A gay man and a gay woman have been just as able to marry as a straight and a straight woman. Straight people of the same sex have been just as unable to marry as gay people of the same sex.

    If what’s quoted is “the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws”, then the equal protection argument is pointless. They aren’t asking for equal rights, they are asking for a new right.

  • The Root of Liberalism

    04/04/2014 10:01:12 AM PDT · 17 of 36
    KrisKrinkle to Crucial
    What really drives a liberal is a feeling and a reaction to that feeling. Liberals feel inadequate to deal with the world around them.

    So could you say:

    What really drives a conservative is a feeling and a reaction to that feeling. Conservatives feel adequate to deal with the world around them.
  • FreeRepublic founder Jim Anderson found living in most liberal city in America.

    04/01/2014 10:05:57 AM PDT · 25 of 29
    KrisKrinkle to GraceG

    Jim Anderson?? Father Knows Best???

    Jim Anderson and Ward Cleaver were my models for being a father. I’d figure out what they’d do and then I’d do something different.

  • Jamelle Bouie: Why whites support capital punishment

    04/01/2014 8:32:17 AM PDT · 38 of 43
    KrisKrinkle to IrishBrigade
    ...fine, but the instrument of that penalty should be the family of the victim, not a dispassionate entity with little or no skin in the game...

    Shall we go back to blood feud?

    Why let "a dispassionate entity with little or no skin in the game" determine a penalty is necessary and what penalty should be imposed?

    What if the family of the victim is of a forgiving nature and does not want to be the instrument of the penalty?

  • Jamelle Bouie: Why whites support capital punishment

    04/01/2014 8:19:44 AM PDT · 37 of 43
    KrisKrinkle to muir_redwoods; ilovesarah2012
    By that argument taxes, affirmative action and alien amnesty are actions if the people.

    Well, yeah, kind of. You can pretty much trace all of that back to the people who did or didn't cast votes one way or the other. One faction carried the vote, and others didn't. On the matter of taxes, in my community we get to vote directly on a lot of them. Sometimes my side carries the vote, sometimes not.

    Life is a gift and I’m not sure the very fallible state should be empowered to take it away from anyone.

    Should fallible people have that power? Should fallible people have the right to chose cellmates?

  • No, 30,000 Alaskans Did Not Sign a Petition to Join Russia

    03/31/2014 11:18:32 AM PDT · 24 of 34
    KrisKrinkle to blueunicorn6
    The number one agricultural product of Massachusetts is flowers BS.