Posted on 01/15/2002 6:27:04 AM PST by tberry
First of all your premise that the LDS church would still me headquartered in Independence Missouri, if we had tolerance of religion could be argued as a possibility. There are other possibilities here too. One of the more profound is that slavery would have come to a natural and peaceable end rather than won by bloodshed. This would have affected the LDS church profoundly too since the LDS church and their more than civil way that they treated Africans and Native Americans brought about much of the persecution that the church had to endure.
Now the polygamy question. Even at the height of polygamy in the LDS church, no more than 5% of all males in the church were called by the leaders to enter into marriage with more than one wife. Even then, such marriages were only with the consent of the first wife and the leaders of the church. Polygamy did not come about because of marital infidelity, to the contrary, those that did not honor their marriage, were not even considered for taking a second wife. Given the amount of LDS males murdered or killed by the harsh climate of the times, the 5% number matched quite well with the LDS female population. In today's times such a figure would be far less, because the need is far less, if at all. IMHO.
But as you know, Gods' wisdom often is tested by men's little understanding. Even before the onset of the most bitter persecution of the LDS church, Smith and other leaders knew that such times were coming and foretold of the exodus from the United States into the mountains. This to be done to fulfill both modern and ancient prophecy.
No, I used to think that too. But, if you realize that the BOR is not neccessary (the Constitution minus the BOR describes limits on government, which, if followed, would not infringe on rights at all because it doesnt empower FEDGOV to do so)... then you can see that the 14th was a power coup, it MADE YOU a citizen of FEDGOV, where before there was no interface, no jurisdiction, between you and FEDGOV.
The 14th doesnt mention rights, only "privleges and immunities".
FEDGOV was set up to defend the states and to assure free interstate commerce, and to administer a system to resolve interstate (mostly commercial) disputes. The State was your insulation between you as an individual and FEDGOV. Now the States are an appendage.
The 14th was an encroachment, a violation of the spheres of power.
Panhandling on public property is simply a nuisance at best, and can be dangerous at worst. During the Dinkins era, it was quite common to be asked for money a dozen times an hour - as a tourist, I found that I didn't want to go bak to NYC because of this. And many were like me. This translates into lost tourism dollars for NYC and consequently lost jobs. NYC under Rudy has generally handled this well - those not threatening anyone and are not frequent panhandlers are asked to move along. Others can be sent to jail.
You stated: No victim and perp, then no crime. I guess there are different shades of gray on this. I say that being a victim goes beyond physical harm or property right violations. If someone's actions affect me financially, in any manner directly or indirectly, then a crime has been committed. If my comfort is reduced, then I have lost a degree of freedom, and a crime has been committed. If my neighbor likes to smoke dope, but keeps it to himself and is otherwise pleasant, I'm not about to turn him in. If there's a prostitute five doors down, in my opinion the potential for harm to my well being is great enough that I wouldn't think twice about turning her in. I will not have my freedom reduced for their sake.
It was written as an assurance, the constitution doesnt GIVE the fed the power to regulate speech, religion or guns. Nor does it give them the power to quarter soldiers nor implement arbritrary search and seizure nor administer cruel and unusual punishment.
The BOR is an incomplete listing, and could be shortened to amendment 10.
Fed has no powers other than granted by the Constitution. BOR is superfluous, do a net search on the preamble to the BOR (which has been removed from nearly every copy of Constitution -- it reads in part:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
The bold indicates that, EVEN absent the BOR, any action that violated the 'rights' in the BOR, would be a misconstruction and abuse of power.
How? I believe the seller and sellee are usually sneakin' around.
However it seems the ones giving their body away don't seem to care who watches. I don't like to see people groping each other in real life, on TV or anywhere else. It offends me. I think they used to call it "indecent in public".
I consider myself a libertarian.
LMAO, says who? States can ban Pokemon cards if they wanted to.
Try to use some logic here. Ask any other Freeper, even Libertarians, and they will agree. Why do states even exist if they all must have the exact same laws?
You have been told that outright bans/prohibitions are NOT constitutional, by many freepers, in many different threads. It is not logical that you insist otherwise.
-- States have been given the power to prohibit violent/fraudulent criminal acts, whether commited in public or private.
NO where, in the federal, or in any state constitution will you find the power ceded to prohibit private, non-violent behavior, or to prohibit peaceful possession of any type of property.
In fact, there are many restrictions on such police powers in every constitution.
Public behaviours or possessions can be regulated, using due process. NOT prohibited.
I know this about him and yet I keep doing it again. I guess hope springs eternal.
And if you found a state with enough people that believed that, you could get yourselves some laws on that.
BTW, are you the FReeper formerly known as Prism?
Read the restrictions on state power in the 14th, Sec 1.
Where in the world do you get that from?
I think it is against librtarian principles to not allow the morning prayer in school like we had when I was in school. Schools should not be told by the government what they can do.
You mean to a community that believes as I and wishes to prohibit hard drugs and prostitution? Well, I don't need to, because my current community (state) already does. Why should I move? If anyone in my community wishes to do such things, they can go find a state that shares their low standards. I could care less what is legal in another state (within the bounds of the Constitution).
Wow,Tex, I agree with you!
Perhaps you should go back to an older thread to learn.
I somewhat agree with you there, but you might have a bit of a discussion with tpaine and free tally on the subject.
Actually I think you are pretty much the only one that said that. Others such as OWK, admit that it can be quite constitutional to do such, but they just think it morally wrong.
------------------------------
---- Democratic, 'will of the majority' type thinking.
Exactly what this forum is dedicated against.
Sounds like you 'got a clue', -- from roscoe. -- Another socialist in FR drag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.