Free Republic

He built a dam on a creek without a federal permit, required by the Clean Water Act according to the EPA interpretation.

>Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g. certain farming and forestry activities)<

From the EPA letter of violation:
>On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a darn. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately 745-foot reach.<

This goes hand-in-hand with the EPA claiming jurisdiction over non-navigable intermittent streams and ditches. A federal judge just blocked them, but the EPA states that it will continue to enforce it in states that don’t sue to stop it. (WTF?)

Downstream neighbors likely complained about it and it escalated from there.

Those are our SM-3 Block 1A Standard missiles with Mark 21 Mod 2 canisters (a.k.a. Patriot 3) systems on Japanese ships. In other words, it’s a version of our system that we sold to them and developed to be compatible with their fire control. The system works, but is still in development to meet the level of capability that we desire.

So, you mean that it should be perfectly legal for people to carry tens of thousands of dollars in cash without having to declare it, nevermind the narcotic-sniffing dog (the one that tagged his luggage)? Organized crime loves voters like you. Flying is not a right. It is a federally regulated private enterprise offering transportation to the public. When people cross the borders of our nation, I should hope that they are subject to scrutiny by the government as this is part of their Constitutional responsibility.

Mayor's orders:

---

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS

STATE OF LOUISIANA

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

PROMULGATION OF EMERGENCY ORDERS

WHEREAS, the National Weather Service has indicated that Hurricane Katrina will likely affect the Louisiana coast with hurricane force winds and heavy rainfall by this evening;

WHEREAS, because of anticipated high lake and marsh tides due to the tidal surge, combined with the possibility of intense thunderstorms, hurricane force winds, and widespread severe flooding, Governor Kathleen Blanco and I, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, have each declared a State of Emergency;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, as the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, pursuant to the authority granted by La. Rev. Stat. 29:727, do hereby promulgate and issue the following orders, which shall be effective immediately and which shall remain in effect until the earlier of five days following the date of this issuance or the declaration by the Governor that the State of Emergency no longer exists:

1. A mandatory evacuation order is hereby called for all of the Parish of Orleans, with only the following exceptions: essential personnel of the United States of America, State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans; essential personnel of regulated utilities and mass transportation services; essential personnel of hospitals and their patients; essential personnel of the media; essential personnel of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriffs Office and its inmates and essential personnel of operating hotels and their patrons. Unless covered by one of the aforementioned exceptions, every person is hereby ordered to immediately evacuate the City of New Orleans or, if no other alternative is available, to immediately move to one of the facilities within the City that will be designated as refuges of last resort.

2. In order to effectuate the mandatory evacuation, at the direction of the Mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of Homeland Security for the City of New Orleans or any member of the New Orleans Police Department, the City may commandeer any private property, including, but not limited to, buildings that may be designated as refuges of last resort and vehicles that may be used to transport people out the area.

The City Attorney is directed to file this declaration promptly in the office of the Clerk of Court and with the Secretary of State.

---

Note part 2, "In order to effectuate the mandatory evacuation, at the direction of the Mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of Homeland Security for the City of New Orleans or any member of the New Orleans Police Department, the City may commandeer any private property, including, but not limited to, buildings that may be designated as refuges of last resort and vehicles that may be used to transport people out the area."

An insurgent sharpshooter. Whoop. I suspect that somebody is inflating battlefield tales.

The last accumulated statistic that I read in a report indicated a 25% hit-probability by police officers. That is an indication as to why police officers often require high-capacity magazines. The average officer does not train enough or properly to consistently hit his target when under stress (a.k.a. real life). (Meanwhile, certain groups believe that only law-enforcement should have high-capacity magazines.)

I forgot to post a quote from John Adams. Here's a clearly personal expression:

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward, for evermore. You will think me transported by enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this declaration and support and defend these states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not."
- John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams (his wife), 3 July 1776

Here's a second one, just to illustrate how severely misunderstood the Founders are by people seeking to deny the role of religion, particularly Judeo-Christian beliefs, in the establishment of our government.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

BTW, When John Adams died, his declared religious affiliation was Unitarian and services were held at United First Parish Church, Quincy, Massachusetts (his birthplace, though it was named Braintree at the time).

You are consistently failing to address the issue and now you try to heap someone else's BS rather than exhibit high-level thinking skills. Oh, well, let's play your game a bit and see how pathetic you get.

"Some people today assert that the United States government came from Christian foundations. They argue that our political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution. If this proved true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves the case."

Note the very last sentence, as I will come back to show how the writer fails to establish support for his own argument.


"Although, indeed, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton's mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning."

Here, the author states that "our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking". It should be noted that the religious groups that established themselves on this country were no less Christian than the dominant churches that they left behind. Membership of founding fathers in smaller denominations, less established churches, or declining official membership in any of the above does not automatically make their view any less Christian. Indeed, 52 out of the 55 most influential founders were Orthodox or Evangelical Christians (often Presbyterians, Baptists, or Methodists). Moreover, in line with enlightened thinking, they often engaged in a great deal of personal study on religious matters rather than deferring to a religious leader. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both Deists, often wrote letters reflecting such contemplation. Benjamin Franklin, another Deist and often cited as the least religious of the Founding Fathers, nevertheless had very strong religious convictions. I will cite their words as the writer makes his claims.


"A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." "

This is a clearly absurd statement to maintain, given our greater access to records from the period. Note the following excerpt:

"Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

Toward mid-century the country experienced its first major religious revival. The Great Awakening swept the English-speaking world, as religious energy vibrated between England, Wales, Scotland and the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. In America, the Awakening signaled the advent of an encompassing evangelicalism--the belief that the essence of religious experience was the "new birth," inspired by the preaching of the Word. It invigorated even as it divided churches. The supporters of the Awakening and its evangelical thrust--Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists--became the largest American Protestant denominations by the first decades of the nineteenth century. Opponents of the Awakening or those split by it--Anglicans, Quakers, and Congregationalists--were left behind.

Another religious movement that was the antithesis of evangelicalism made its appearance in the eighteenth century. Deism, which emphasized morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view of the divinity of Christ, found advocates among upper-class Americans. Conspicuous among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Deists, never more than "a minority within a minority," were submerged by evangelicalism in the nineteenth century."
- Section II. "Religion in 18th-America", "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" by James H. Hutson, Library of Congress


"The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry."

The writer now appears to attempt some sort of convoluted reasoning along the lines that because many of our Founding Fathers were Freemasons and Freemasonry promotes freedom of religion, that this indicated that they were thus less religious. This is an obvious non-sequitor. While a number of denominations, such as Catholicism, prohibited membership, the vast majority of Freemasons were Christians, often from Evanglical denominations.


"The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.""
The ignoring of the views of documents and persons from which the Constitution was extracted is clearly evident in the writer's argument. He neglects to note the influence of Virginia's constitution and the strength of the writers' religious convictions, merely dwelling upon the words of the Constitution. He clearly ignores the Federalist papers. He also ignores the members of each state's legislature, the ones whose ratification of the Constitution was dependent upon. What is to made of his reasoning other than it indicates that he sees only what he wishes to see?


"Thomas Jefferson:
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.""
Yet, according to the Library of Congress, Thomas Jefferson was a church-going man, a "most regular attendant" at church services in the House of Representatives at which, surviving records show, evangelical Christianity was forcefully preached. His critical thinking clearly did not indicate that he was non-religious, rather that he was willing to question that which others took for granted. Indeed, during his Presidency, Jefferson permitted the usage of federal buildings for religious services. It is readily apparent that the separation of church and state did not mean to Jefferson what many thought it meant. The failure to take into context the spirit and intent of the Founders, clearly leads to fallacious interpretation.


The writer goes on to mention the Constitution and its sparse mention of religion, but as mentioned before fails to properly provide context. It is almost as if the Viriginia Declaration of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and the clear records from that period of our young democratic republic don't mean anything.


"James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity."

James Madison, another deist, was a a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and approved of its clause declaring, "It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." Indeed, his letters were often filled with spiritual admonition and encouragement. To those not familiar with most of Madison's writings, it seems almost self-contradictory. What many fail to realize is that he was greatly in favor of religious expressions and Judeo-Christian beliefs (he often publicly made religious expression).

"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."
- James Madison

While being a devout believer, he too was a regular attendant, Madison suspected large religious organizations and government involvement in religion. Thus, he espoused the separation of church and state, not to prevent religious expression, but to prevent the tyranny of the English Crown and the Church of England, various European monarchies and the Catholic Church, and the various dominant sects of Christianity that suppressed other denominations with the aid of government. To him, history clearly showed that the larger the organization and government involvement, the greater the corruption and religious supression.

"[...] Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

[...] What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."
- James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance"

Again, the common message is that church and state are separated for the good of those that value their religious freedom. Yet, Madison was not advocating the right to freedom *from* public religious expression, but the right *of* public religious expression. Once again, the writer demonstrates the ability to ignore an immense portion of a founder's writings.


The writer's comments on the 1892 Supreme Court ruling on "Holy Trinity vs. United States" seems to indicate that the Supreme Court did not actually *officially* recognize the United States as a Christian nation, yet note the following headnotes and statutory reference by the Court.

"ALIENS 50

The word "labor" as used in the alien labor contract law, 23 Stat. 332, prohibiting the importation of foreigners under contract to perform labor, etc., means manual labor as distinguished from that of a professional man, as a clergyman.

ALIENS 50

Although the alien contract labor law, 23 Stat. 332, prohibits the importation of "any" foreigners under contract to perform "labor or service of any kind," yet it does not apply to one who comes to this country under contract to enter the service of a church as its rector.

STATUTES 183

It is within the power of courts to declare that a thing which is within the letter of a statute is not governed by the statute, because not within its spirit or the intention of its makers.

STATUTES 210

In the construction of a statute, both the title and preamble may be considered in doubtful cases.

STATUTES 211

Where doubt exists as to meaning of a statute, the title may be looked to for aid in its construction.

STATUTES 212

It being historically true that the American people are a religious people, as shown by the religious objects expressed by the original grants and charters of the colonies, and the recognition of religion in the most solemn acts of their history, as well as in the constitutions of the states and the nation, the courts, in construing statutes should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion.

STATUTES 215

In construing a doubtful statute the court will consider the evil which it was designed to remedy, and for this purpose will look into contemporaneous events, including the situation as it existed, and as it was pressed upon the attention of the legislative body, while the act was under consideration."

Once more, the ability to see what one wants to see manages to defy the most obvious of truths.


I will close this post with quotes from two more of our nation's Founders.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
- James Madison


"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790

needsomereason wrote:"Ah, the old "activist judiciary" argument again."

Engage or FO. It seems to me that you aren't able to deal with the fundamental issues and thus try to dismiss anything that obliterates your arguments. Further, I will note that the issue was the usage of personal ideology to judge rather than the principles upon which this country was founded.

In other words, the judiciary is interpreting the Constitution as meaning what *they* want it to mean as opposed to what *the founders* said it meant. This problem has plagued the Judicial Branch for a long time. The passage of time is not an acceptable excuse. The founding fathers of this nation left a wealth of reference documentation: articles, debates, letters, papers (particularly the Federalist Papers). As representatives of the People, it was their duty to establish a nation that would promote the ideals and intent of the People. It is the duty of the judiciary to use those documents as the lens by which the Constitution is interpreted and used for judicial review.

The intentions of the Founders cannot be ignored without disregarding the will of the People, for it was the representatives of the People that debated the issues that would shape the government and that voted on behalf of the People whether to accept this government. To disregard the history, intent, and spirit behind the three cornerstone documents of the United States of America is to break faith with the People.

The Judical branch was to be the Constitutional Guardian, the portion of the tripart system that would ensure that the government would continue to abide by the contract with the citizens of the United States. Judges were to be activists of the Constitution, promoting the foundational laws of the United States as the Founders intended, not activists of their own calling.

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law, is the intention of the law givers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances, provided they do not contradict the express words of the law."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, 20 May 1808.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. [...]

A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcileable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course to be preferred; or in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. [...]

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78 28 May 1788

Incidentally, regarding the wording of the Constitution, the governing principles of our nation go beyond what some choose to recognize. It *includes* the intentions of our nation's founding fathers, and the spirit in which such words were written. Doing so otherwise would be to ignore context and definition, essential aspects of established law. It is akin to attempting to literally redefine "sex" and "marriage" to suit personal whims.

That is a non-sequitor. Any law must still abide by the Constitution and the Principles of this nation. While our democratic republic is based upon religious belief, religious leaders do not have the ability to dictate federal law. An Islamic community could lobby government to put up a monument bearing Islamic belief, but they cannot force others to follow their beliefs. Sharia is not established by the duly elected legislative representatives of the People, but by religious clerics. Thus, Sharia could not be *enforced* by federal, state, and local government agencies. Neither can religious organizations enforce Sharia with disregard to U.S. laws. Elements of Sharia would run contrary to the letter, intent, and spirit of our Constitution, thus it could not be upheld as law.

You are attempting to distort the meaning of the Constitution and the intention of this country's founders. According to you, the government-dictated teaching of the theory of evolution thus violates the Constitution as it contradicts the religious beliefs of American citizens.

The presentation of a belief, symbol, or teaching does result in compulsion. A person is not forced to believe in evolution by the teaching of evolution. A person is not forced to believe in God by the presentation of religious symbols. An atheist is no more forced to believe in God by the presence of religious symbols or expressions on public property as a Christian is forced to believe in evolution by the legislated requirement that it be taught in public schools.

The founders intended that the beliefs of the People would continue to be expressed by its government. It was evident in their invocation of God, the placement of Christian symbols, and their usage of Christian beliefs in the formation of our nations' laws. That is the nature of our democratic republic. Remember we have the right to freedom of religious belief and expression, not the right to freedom from religious belief and expression. The expression of religious belief was not to be restricted.

Note the portion of the First Amendment that is at issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting the free exercise thereof*...." It was not intended that the Federal government not express the religious beliefs of the People. Rather, the selection's original inspiration indicates precisely what was intended: "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." The Founding Fathers considered the government of the United States to be essentially based upon Christian belief. It was not intended to be atheistic, but to be Christian!

Is a Christian not capable of being a Christian *and* a representative of the People of the United States of America? Is a government founded upon Christian beliefs not capable of governinng non-Christians? The overwhelming majority of the People of the United States are religious, though to varying degrees. Our nation's founders were also men possessing religious beliefs, though they too were diverse and varied in their public expression of it. To prohibit the expression of religious belief is to take another step towards divorcing the Federal government from the People and the Principles upon which this nation was founded.

"The SCOTUS doesn't see it that way and I'd venture a guess that they know more about the constitution...and its history...than you and I put together. :-)"

That is a logically fallacious argument known as "appeal to authority". The Supreme Court might know about U.S. history, but they have clearly chosen to ignore it in favor of their own interpretation. The National Archives and preserved words of our nation's founding fathers (i.e. "the facts") clearly show the truth of what I and others have stated concerning the original meaning of the Constitution. Many Justices of the Supreme Court have chosen to espouse their own personal ideologies rather than abide by the principles upon which this nation was founded. The judicial branch is overstepping its role as originally set forth, creating de facto laws rather than checking the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government of the United States.

Error: I switched characters. The section from the Virginia Declaration of Rights is "XVI", not "XIV".

Regarding the First Amendment, you are ignoring the intent of the Founders and will of the People. This is most clearly evident when examining the inspiration for the Constitutional Bill of Rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- Article I, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, December 15, 1791

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other."
- Section XIV, Viriginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

The Bill of Rights was a heavily abbreviated version of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Every representative understood its language as structured to prevent government from espousing a particular form of Christianity as being the one and only officially recognized one. Modern attempts to frame it as implying a separation of church and state (a twisting of Jefferson's words in a letter and not even a direct quote) diminish the Constitution. If any branch of the Federal government can choose to ignore the original intent of our country's founders and the People's will by simply 'interpreting' the Constitution to mean what it wants, then what "rights" do we truly have?

To my knowledge, it's the usage of blood in the transplant process that they oppose. I've met a few of them with kidney transplants, so your statement is apparently false.

Depending on how it is written, it might be better to make it a strictly federal program with transactions strictly between parents and schools/school districts. I say that because of the administrative overhead at the state level and the fact that we are dealing with a program aimed at individuals, not the states.

Your editorial contains some of the essentials, but it needs to be made more concise. Examine whether 'commentary' (contained in parenthesis) should be part of the sentence or included. Please check your spelling and punctuation before submitting it as there are a number of errors.

You should also note that Michael Moore and his ilk are representative of the media and entertainment, neither respecting truth or our values. They are one and the same, not worthy of separate consideration.

I would also consider it important to mention our Constitution and Bill of Rights as representative of the underlying ideals from our founding fathers, religious and philosophically enlightened men. Those same ideals are what many individual Americans hold dear, the same people considered by so-called liberals to be "extremists".

The problem with legalization of 'soft' drugs, 'recreational' drugs, and illicit narcotics is that we would accelerating the decay of society in our current state. Beyond any 'medicinal' properties (non-curative analgesic), it has been the abuse of drugs to 'escape' or 'relieve' the stress of reality that dominates any society that accepts legalization.

The myth that somehow things will get better if society simply accepts usage of drugs has been thoroughly debunked. The European experiments have revealed the folly of it and our own experience with the real costs of alcohol and tobacco abuse have shown that the price extend beyond the financial numbers and well into health and social costs.

The outlawing of drug use might not be cheap, but I consider the costs to be sustainable, considering the alternative. With regards to personal rights, that is a matter of keeping government in check.

Precisely. Certain technological developments are more practical to attain in zero-g/near-zero-g environments. Constantly transporting raw materials from deep inside of Earth's gravity well to an orbital production facility is not efficient. It would be much better in long run to establish a logistical connection with a lunar facility for high-mass materials.