If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message oups.com... Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would have happened eventually too. Not necessarily. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message ps.com... The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording betweenthe extant written records of the Congress and various state legislatures. There are also allegations that some states the US Secretary of State credted with ratification , have no record of having ratified the 16th amendment and/or other irregularities. at the state level, including a failure of the governor to sign the bill for one or more states. Have I got that right? I dscount the 'no evidence argument' as I have no idea how good the record keeping was. The absence of an extant record does not prove the measure did not pass and you would suppose that if a particular state did not pass it, some legislators would have raised the issue. There are no records of THAT, either, are there? Not so much as a persoanl diary entry The 'governor failed to sign argument' is specious because the Constitution of the United States of America (CUSA) specifies that amendments are to be ratified by the state legislatures with no mention of the state governors. The individual States cannot impose additional requirements for amending he Constitution any more than they can change the term of office or impose additional eligibility requiirements for their Senators and Congresmen. So this leaves us with the inconsistant wording and punctuation argument, right? In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in interpretation, indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed with the words recorded and enterred into the records by the clerks. It is a safe bet that pretty much all legislation of that era, and all previous amendments as well as the various copies of the original Constitution had similar inconsistencies particularly when you consider that the promulgation and acceptance of unifrom standards for English spelling, punctuation and grammar in legal and academic circles post-date the Constitution itself. The Sixteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional. The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA. That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states. The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison. The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid, (and I note that you are not he person who introduced that notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this as they are not honest people. Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became the first ten amendments. That change was also made without ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced against the validity of the sixteenth amendment. Twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states, ten were ratified in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message oups.com... Money. What money did the slaves have? |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message ps.com... That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private party. The federal government does not have the powers that are not denied it by the Constitution, it has only the powers given by the Constitution. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message . .. Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such "ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible. That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would have happened eventually too. Not necessarily. The US might instead have gone the route of Canada or Australia, New Zealand, or, hmm... The eventual, peaceful independence of the US would seem to have been at least as inevitable as the eventual, peaceful end of slavery, but neither would have come soon enough without war. -- FF |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message oups.com... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would have happened eventually too. Not necessarily. The US might instead have gone the route of Canada or Australia, New Zealand, or, hmm... The eventual, peaceful independence of the US would seem to have been at least as inevitable as the eventual, peaceful end of slavery, but neither would have come soon enough without war. If the US had not have achieved independence when and as it did the Queen of England might, by now, rule the entire planet. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message ps.com... The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording ... In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in interpretation, indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed... The Sixteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. Nor is it part of the Magna Carta. So? As you wil recall, my point is that if one accepts the "Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified" argument then consistency demands that you also accept that the Bill of Rights was not properly ratified. However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional. The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA. That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states. The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison. The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid, (and I note that you are not he person who introduced that notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this as they are not honest people. Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became the first ten amendments. That change was also made without ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced against the validity of the sixteenth amendment. Twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states, ten were ratified in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Not quite true, the twelve articlees were all part of ONE amendment. They were not passed separatly and sent to the states as separate amendments. -- FF |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Money. What money did the slaves have? Frederick Douglass and other slaves who worked for wages had the money they earned, which was turned over to their owners. Those who worked for their owners and were not paid wages would be compensated for the market value of their labor. Perhaps you are hung up on pedantry turning on the use of 'returned'. What was taken from them was labor, what ostensibly would be returned would be money equivalent to the market value of that labor. An alternative proposal (from the TV show _The West Wing_) is to 'return' the value of their labor via income tax credits, also impractical, IMHO. -- FF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
(OT) TN NG 287th ACR mobilized first since Korean War: | CallsignZippo | Military Aviation | 0 | May 13th 04 06:50 AM |
North and South Korean overviews online. Your comments please !! | Frank Noort | Military Aviation | 0 | May 12th 04 08:40 PM |
US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War? | Rats | Military Aviation | 21 | January 26th 04 08:56 AM |
SOVIET VIEW OF THE KOREAN WAR | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | December 28th 03 05:41 AM |