Apollo: One gas environment?

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
It's an even bigger shame that schmucks from other countries who've
obviously never studied U.S. Constitutional Law think they understand
the U.S. Constitution.

It's a still bigger shame that so many Americans don't understand it -- or
don't pay any attention to it -- and meekly cooperate when their elected
officials run roughshod over it in the name of "national security".

"'Congress shall make no law' does not mean 'Congress may make some laws'."

--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote:
On 11 May 2004 23:06:58 -0400, (Nicholas Fitzpatrick)
wrote:

...Nick, out of curiosity, what part of the world is the pot you smoke
actually grown?

I guess I'll take that as a yes! ...

...You totally avoided the question, Nicky. Tsk.

I assumed it was rhetorical ... I not even sure of the origin of the
apples I bought at the grocery store last week ... let alone the
origins of a couple of joints I shared sometime in the 1980's.

To quote one of your great leaders ...
"... I didn't like it. I didn't inhale"

Nick




Nick

In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

In article ,
Brett Buck wrote:

Warfighting
is the main business of government, everywhere,

Ah ... perhaps that is the fundamental problem with the USA. Is this
a common belief there?

Uh, almost any concept of civilization is that people group together in
order to provide for the common defense. It's a fundamental principle of
human society, so yes, it's a common belief. I personally would argue that
common defense is nearly the *only* valid function of collective government,
but even if you think it should so more than that, common defense is central
to any theory.

And it's certainly not a "problem with the US". People who threaten our
way of life and liberty will be quite properly be attacked and hopefully as
effectively and "asymmetrically" as possible in order to minimize our
casualties, and maximize theirs.

Self-defence ... and even the ability to pre-emptively attack another
nation, is certainly an important of business. I'm just surprised that
anyone would think it was THE main business of government. Perhaps
diplomacy should be a little higher on the list.

Nick

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."

- U.S. Constitution, Preamble

This is arguably the best example of crafting an enduring government
from scratch in history. You'll note that providing "for the common
defence" (sic) is inserted prominently among the essential purposes for
creation of the government, right after insuring "domestic Tranquility"
and right before promoting "the general Welfare".

It's a fascinating document, used as a model for many other governments
since. You should read it sometime. You should also read the 215 years
or so of Constitutional jurisprudence, starting with
_Marbury_v._Madison_ and continuing to at least the key cases of the
1990's if you'd like to argue compellingly (and accurately) about the
purposes of the United States government, its protections (or claimed
lack thereof) for minorities, and for what constitutes a protected
minority under American law (an aspect you seem to have missed or
ignored).

If you enroll in an accredited American law school by this fall, we can
resume this discussion intelligently sometime around May of 2007.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Hang on ... someone made an arguement that the US being a republic
protects minority rights, while other democracies go with majority
rule (or something like that). I pointed out that minority rights
had less protection in the US than most other democracies (take
G7 for example) ... so the arguement doesn't hold up.

You don't know jack **** about U.S. Constitutional freedoms and
protections for "minority rights", obviously. That's a good enough
basis to disagree with you.

Educate me then. Tell me how minority rights are better protected
in the USA, than say, in your average EU nation.

Nick

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:33:00 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

And we paid him back in WWI in Pershing's famous words (though I
understand
his aide actually spoke them) "Lafayette, we have returned."

Er, I think you misspelled "Lafayette, we are here."

Was it Washington who said, "Thank God for Lafayette!" ?

In article ,
G EddieA95 wrote:

But seriously, what do *you* think Government is for?

I always thought it was to keep lawyers off the streets (unless
they are driving an expensive car ...

Nick

In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Hang on ... someone made an arguement that the US being a republic
protects minority rights, while other democracies go with majority
rule (or something like that). I pointed out that minority rights
had less protection in the US than most other democracies (take
G7 for example) ... so the arguement doesn't hold up.

You don't know jack **** about U.S. Constitutional freedoms and
protections for "minority rights", obviously. That's a good enough
basis to disagree with you.

Educate me then. Tell me how minority rights are better protected
in the USA, than say, in your average EU nation.

Nick

That's good debate practice but it won't work on me. You're the one
claiming minority protections in the U.S. are somehow inadequate. YOU
prove YOUR statement; I don't have to disprove it.

Besides which, I suspect very strongly that you have no idea what
constitutes a "minority" under U.S. law and how such determinations are
made in the first place. But I'd be delighted for you to prove me wrong.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On 5/12/04 6:56 AM, in article , "Nicholas
Fitzpatrick" wrote:

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Hang on ... someone made an arguement that the US being a republic
protects minority rights, while other democracies go with majority
rule (or something like that). I pointed out that minority rights
had less protection in the US than most other democracies (take
G7 for example) ... so the arguement doesn't hold up.

You don't know jack **** about U.S. Constitutional freedoms and
protections for "minority rights", obviously. That's a good enough
basis to disagree with you.

Educate me then. Tell me how minority rights are better protected
in the USA, than say, in your average EU nation.

Well, given that US law decrees that there may be no official
discrimination against minorities whatsoever, in any form, (for about 4
decades now), it would be hard to beat that. One of the only positive
societal accomplishments during the Johnson administration.

In fact, the only discrimination allowed in the current US policy is *in
favor* of minorities in the form of "affirmative action" and many other
corollary programs that provide advantages as some sort of highly dubious
notion of "payback" for collective liberal guilt. Which I don't share, by
the way.

Once again, you don't appear to know a God damn thing about the topic,
just admit you are wrong and crawl back under your rock.

Brett

"Brett Buck" wrote ...
Well, given that US law decrees that there may be no official
discrimination against minorities whatsoever, in any form, (for about 4
decades now), it would be hard to beat that. One of the only positive
societal accomplishments during the Johnson administration.

Which is a pretty bit of paper - how well it is implemented?

Laws may only be as good as the societies implementing them.

On 5/12/04 7:38 AM, in article , "Paul
Blay" wrote:

"Brett Buck" wrote ...
Well, given that US law decrees that there may be no official
discrimination against minorities whatsoever, in any form, (for about 4
decades now), it would be hard to beat that. One of the only positive
societal accomplishments during the Johnson administration.

Which is a pretty bit of paper - how well it is implemented?

Laws may only be as good as the societies implementing them.

There is no place in this country where the government is allowed to draw
distinctions based on race, color, creed, political affiliation. It's simply
a non-issue. The "civil rights" movement, proper, is moot, and finished.


As it's your accusation, it's yours to prove otherwise.


Brett