Mark in Time

Article 5 of the Constitution last passage states states:

" and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

That last passage prevents any amendment from taking away a State's representation in the Senate.

But the 17th Amendment does just that. It takes the power away from the State and gives it to individuals. This in effect breaks the representative power of the State. Text of 17th Amendment:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

I'm no "legal scholar" but it seems to me that any State at and time can use Article 5 to opt-out of Amendment 17.

Hillary got millions for "speaking" fees from Goldman Sachs. At least one 15 minute "speech" netted her $250,000.

Ted Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs and apparently he failed to report certain favorable financial benefits he received from them.

On the other hand, the "outsiders" Bernie and The Donald have avoided entangling themselves with Goldman Sachs...

While the current Obama administration is almost completely run by ex-Goldman Sachs CEOs, Co-COOs, Co-Chairman, Senior Directors, Lobbyists, Chief Consuls, etc.

Will you vote for Goldman Sachs or against them? Your choice.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist.

Hillary Clinton says she's a Progressive.

Assuming they are both what they profess to be... what are the pros and cons of each?

Both current mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio and former mayor and anti-gun activist billionaire Michael Bloomberg claim that "assault weapons" must be banned because their only purpose is to kill masses of people. And yet:

- During this past NYE celebration in Times Square, the NYC police were armed with "long rifles" (true select fire military "assault weapons"). Was this so the police could kill masses of civilians if things got out of hand?

- Our federal government refers to true select fire military assault weapons as "personal defense weapons" on their own website. Hence, by their own label our own military leaders believe "assault weapons" have a valid "defensive" purpose.

- The term “assault rifle” (Sturmgewehr) was first used by Adolf H. for propaganda purposes in WWII as a designation for the German designed MP43. It is disconcerting that some groups are still using the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” for propaganda today.

- “Assault weapons/rifles” are already banned from civilians in the USA. Those guns that fire more than one round per trigger pull, such as the select fire military M4 and M16, have been illegal in the USA since the mob battles of the 1930’s and remain so today.

- Why is it that those who least trust the police not to kill civilians think only police should have guns?

So you are registered as an "independent" because you claim to vote for the "person" and not the "party".

Now here comes the unintended consequence...

If independent, moderate, reasonable people register "independent", in most states they are NOT allowed to vote in Republican or Democrat primaries. This means the people with the most extreme views on both the left and right are the ones choosing the people YOU get to vote for.

Do you think this could be a real problem for independents and for the country at large?

It seems contradictory to me that if you don't believe humans were "created" (creationist) but have "evolved" (evolutionist) then as Darwin surmised in his "Origins of the Species", the same species will evolve differently and at a different rate depending on its environment.

Humans are not a monolithic breed just as the pit-bull, collie, great dane and Chihuahua share the same dog ancestor from only a few thousand years ago. Unless you are a creationist, can you have to believe that selective breeding by human or environment doesn't affect size, temperament and intelligence to some degree.

An how will you celebrate their lives?

In my case, I will encourage friends and family to examine the life and accomplishments of Otis McDonald. Born of a Louisiana share-cropper family in 1933 he passed away last year. Although a high school dropout, he served honorably in the military and went to the University of Chicago eventually getting a degree and working for that college. He is most noted for the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago which led to adaption of the 2nd Amendment in the 14th thereby preventing states and municipalities from denying people their constitutionally guaranteed Right to self defense.

What is the military going to do to help with the Ebola situation? I can only think of 2 reasons to do this:

1) Keep Ebola from spreading by shooting anyone who has it (Zombie scenario).

2) Reduce military budget by killing off soldiers by exposing them to Ebola.

Either way, when our sons, daughters, husbands, wives return from duty in the infected regions they will have to be quarantined for 3-4 weeks (unlike the 150 or so visitors from Liberia arriving in the US daily).

You think this is a good idea? Why is BHO doing this?

The full quote is:

"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute." - Letter to the Dey of Algiers, August, 1816

As we continue the 200 years struggle against Islamists that we, as a country, first encountered with the Barbary Wars and justified the founding of our Navy and Marines (shores of Tripoli), have we really made any progress? Or, as John Adams said that once we entered into war with them (Muslims) we would be fighting them forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8OCiZsWGw

We are all familiar with restrictions placed on the First and Second Amendments. What are some of the restrictions that are likewise applied to the 14th Amendment by federal, state or local governments?

So many promises. So many lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68WS5B19LC4

Obama administration and especially AG Holder are starting to push for "smart" gun technology that will supposedly prevent a gun from shooting if not in the hand of its owner.

One of the technologies being touted is a radio system by a German company called Armatix. A recent article in The New York Times titled "‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby" does not really explain what the major "Gun Lobby" (or even gun owner) concerns might be.

I see at least 2 issues with this technology. 1) Government won't use it because the frequency could be jammed by bad guys making their guns useless. 2) Civilian's guns with the technology can be jammed by bad guys too, but also by the government.

Can you spot more potential issues for this technology? Do you have ideas for an alternative "smart" gun technology that might work better?

NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smar...

Armatix of Germany site:

http://www.armatix.us/Smart-System.778.0.html?&L=7

As the case against the Arkansas Department of Corrections goes to the Supreme Court...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspira...

Do you think the rights of the guards and other prisoners to a safe environment override an individual's right to practice there religion as they see fit by growing a beard? Should Rastafarians be allowed to smoke ganja in prison in states where pot is legal?

Also, if we can't limit the 1st Amendment rights of convicted felons then why is it OK to limit their 2nd Amendment right not only while in prison but for the rest of their lives?

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Mr. Moore said. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/gr...

This was testimony given before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee. Why won't the liberal media report this? Never mind, I just answered the second question in my question.

Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, a "Progressive" Republican and Woodrow Wilson, a "Progressive" Democrat, hasn't the Constitution been subverted and weakened to the point that the current administration ignores with impunity any of its articles and amendments that it disagrees with?