PDA

View Full Version : Texas passes Merry Christmas bill


flo
06-02-2013, 05:55 AM
Yay! How refreshing. No wonder Texas is such a great state.

State lawmakers in Texas have passed legislation that permits public schools to display nativity scenes, menorahs, or Christmas trees, and allows students and school district staff to use greetings such as, “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah,” and “Happy Holidays.”

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/normanrockwellchristmas_zps8e78c38b.jpg

Here is a link to the full article (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/25/Texas-Passes-Merry-Christmas-Bill-To-Protect-Holidays-From-Politically-Correct-Opposition) and here is the official site for the bill (http://www.merrychristmasbill.com/) as well as the timeline since its inception.

County Mike
06-03-2013, 02:11 PM
Good. Now if they'll approve "Kick a Muslim" day I'll move there.

rearnakedchoke
06-03-2013, 03:38 PM
Good. Now if they'll approve "Kick a Muslim" day I'll move there.

come on man ... the US constitution allows for freedom of religion man ... you aren't telling me that you hate muslims and would actually kick one of them for exercising their constitutional right would ya?

NateR
06-03-2013, 06:12 PM
come on man ... the US constitution allows for freedom of religion man ... you aren't telling me that you hate muslims and would actually kick one of them for exercising their constitutional right would ya?

The Freedom of Religion in the Constitution only prevents the US government from discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs. The restriction applies to our government and ONLY to our government, not private citizens or privately owned businesses. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires private citizens or businesses to respect other people's religious beliefs.

rearnakedchoke
06-03-2013, 06:38 PM
The Freedom of Religion in the Constitution only prevents the US government from discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs. The restriction applies to our government and ONLY to our government, not private citizens or privately owned businesses. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires private citizens or businesses to respect other people's religious beliefs.

well that i know ... i am just wondering why he'd want to actually kick a muslim ... i guess that is his choice really ...

flo
06-03-2013, 07:52 PM
Good. Now if they'll approve "Kick a Muslim" day I'll move there.

Mike, lol!!! :laugh:

Tyburn
06-03-2013, 10:34 PM
The Freedom of Religion in the Constitution only prevents the US government from discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs.

Actually...it only prevents the US Government from descriminating between the differing denominations of Christianity....and requires, consequently, the division between State and Church, which didnt exist in any of the Roman Catholic Countries...and thus proved a massive conflict of interest when Protestantism emerged.

Never was this seen worse then during the English Reformation when King Henry broke from Rome, died with a young, weak heir...and had two Daughters..One Roman Catholic, One Anglican....The Founders of America saw the damage done during the Lancastrian House of Tudor, and avowed to never let that problem happen again.

Thus the split between State (be it Religious, a la Rome, or National, a la local Governments) AND the presumption that Tollerance between Romanism and Protestantism would be upheld. Further, that due to the Religious aspects of the English Civil War, which saw two PROTESTANT Denominations battle each other, the lack of mention of specific denominations was a wise move....but, technically speaking, as much a modern spin as what I mention below

At the time, these different denominations were viewed, by those who upheld them as completely different religions...hence the animosity between them.

When the US Constitution mentions "Religious" Freedom...it is NOT applied contextually to anything but the different denominations of Christianity. To apply it to other faiths, is to but a modern day spin on a document that doesnt include this as an ominssion.

:)

But you should know that...because YOU were the one who taught me the basis...I just researched it more since :laugh: and before anyone points out the faith of the Founders...Diests were an accepted part of Christondom at the time....along with Puritans :laugh: :wink:

rearnakedchoke
06-04-2013, 12:57 AM
^^^^^
doubt that ... there is plenty of discussion of the founding fathers discussing freedom of religion and mentioning religions other than Christianity, such as Islam, Judaism etc ...

County Mike
06-04-2013, 05:21 PM
Well, maybe I'll just kick the extreme muslims.

Tyburn
06-04-2013, 06:46 PM
^^^^^
doubt that ... there is plenty of discussion of the founding fathers discussing freedom of religion and mentioning religions other than Christianity, such as Islam, Judaism etc ...

Look at the time they were writing and tell me it wasnt in response to the problems caused by Government during the Reformation...That would be the Christian Reformation...NOT the Jewish Reformation...and to my best knowledge, Islam has never had a Reformation...the sects of Islam still fight like the Reformationistic Denominations to be between 1500 and 1700

Do you understand that the United States was a British Collonial Outpost. Those who lived in the United States and gained independance due to Mad King George, when they set up their own system of Governance, we egar NOT to make the same mistakes that England had done

They did Two Things in response to two different crisis points in British History. In response to the Reformation, they split the Church from the State, that in itself would screw any Monarchy...because the whole ideal of Monarchy, is the GOD himself has appointed the Monarch to Rule...split the Church from the State...and what authority does a Monarch have?

THAT is the problem faced by King Henry when he split from Rome. He put himself as head of the Church, effectively, one had to choose WHICH Monarch had been chosen by Christ....King Henry...or The Pontifex Maximus. To split the State from Church would leave King Henry in exactly the same place as Pope Innocent...His Rule undermined. The Americans, weary of being treated in a dictatorial manner, saw what happened during the Tudor Dynasty.

When Queen Mary ascended the throne...she was a Daughter of Henry, whose Son and heir died after next to no time on the throne. She was Roman Catholic, and she set about reversing the Reformation in England, and how did she do that? She killed all the Protestants as heretics :laugh: But Queen Mary was Ousted, and Queen Elizabeth asscended the Throne...Elizabeth was also a Daughter of King Henry...but she was a protestant...and what do you think she did....she reversed the whole process back to protestantism. Now, Spain and France saw her as illegitamate for two reasons...First, technically she had stolen the crown from her still living Sister, Mary...who they wanted to return, Why? because she was Catholic, and therefore GOD had appointed her. These were not originally denominations...they were practically different faiths all together. Some Southern Baptists would say...they ARE different faiths...Some people never moved on from the Reformational rift.

Ironically, those who tend to rage most against Rome these days are the Presbyterians. The Presbyterian Church, almost a century after the Reformation would be a cause of the English Civil war. Whilst its generally believed that the Civil War was about Monarchist Vs Parliamentarian...you might like to know...that those who were Monarchists were generally Anglicans...and those who were Parliamentarians were generally presbyterians...who felt that Anglicanism had become the New Rome...and they felt they were oppressed, just like the Protestants had been originally...by the very insitution that had saved the Protestants...and to prove their point...they killed the King.

But once in power, this denomination split itself, and then began to turn on its self. Those who were moderate Presbyterians fell under Manchester. They wanted Equality with the Church of England. But, some radical presbyterians were known as Puritans...and they sought not equality and freedom from possible persecution by the Church of England...but the very destruction of the Church of England itself, much like the Church of England had wanted against Rome....the country wasnt big enough for both...and I'm sorry to say that the Puritans won the battle....But the Puritans couldnt maintain their grip without turning into a dictatorship...when the dictator died...they went back to The King, back to the Church of England...and the whole denomination basically dissapeared

A century after that, and the British Collonies had taken the last straw from the camels back...and they decided that the way to fix this was to make sure that all denominations of Christianity can worship without Hinderance. that way no Puritan could claim he was being squashed by a Presbyterian...and there was no Church of England, or Roman Rule connected to a Government, that could use the above for its own personal tirade against the people.

This did NOT create a Secular Society...it created a Christian Country....where everyone could be whatever Denomination they wanted, and worship without feeling that the Government, or other denominations could squash them

That has NOTHING to do with Islam, or Judaism....

the American Collonies do NOT recall the Crusades...that was before their time...neither really do they know much of the Inquizition...so whilst you can guess and say...well the forefathers would probably have extended that freedom to any faith group...that is not contextually speaking why the rules are in the document...and therefore its application is interpretation.

I personally, think that the Diests would not have imagined an America outside of Christianity...but equally, they would never have seen a "Church of America" nor a Government led Theocracy that might stop it spreading. THAT is the difficulty that America faces concerning Faiths not of Judao-christian ballence. (effectively, all Christian Denominations, are Denominations of Messianic Judaism...so I dont see Jews as a different Faith to Christians...they are simply....less enlightened by the Revelation of Christ.

:) I did have to laugh though when I visited Washington DC...to find that there is such a place as "National Cathedral" and its NOT multi-denominational...its Episcopalian...which also raised an eyebrow...coz that is a Church of the Anglican Denomination...as in Church of England....I guess ones roots, and old habits die hard...for if the President goes to a Cathedral in his own right....He goes to The Church of England in effect.

At least He's not Roman huh :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
06-04-2013, 07:36 PM
^^^
sure it was at the time of reformation, but there are still quotes from the likes of jefferson, adams, franklin that freedom of religion was meant for all religions and not just the different Christian groups ...

Chuck
06-04-2013, 08:48 PM
Yay! How refreshing. No wonder Texas is such a great state.



http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/normanrockwellchristmas_zps8e78c38b.jpg

Here is a link to the full article (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/25/Texas-Passes-Merry-Christmas-Bill-To-Protect-Holidays-From-Politically-Correct-Opposition) and here is the official site for the bill (http://www.merrychristmasbill.com/) as well as the timeline since its inception.

Good find and that's great news!

flo
06-05-2013, 04:40 AM
Good find and that's great news!

Thanks, good to see you, Chuck!

Tyburn
06-05-2013, 06:14 PM
^^^
sure it was at the time of reformation, but there are still quotes from the likes of jefferson, adams, franklin that freedom of religion was meant for all religions and not just the different Christian groups ...

What Quotes....you cant say things like that and then NOT give the quotes your refering to :laugh:

NateR
06-05-2013, 11:12 PM
The Founding Fathers would have been pretty accepting of Judaism, which is why we say that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, not just Christian values.

It also didn't hurt that Jewish settlers were helping to fund the American Revolution. :laugh:

Tyburn
06-06-2013, 05:36 PM
The Founding Fathers would have been pretty accepting of Judaism, which is why we say that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, not just Christian values.

It also didn't hurt that Jewish settlers were helping to fund the American Revolution. :laugh:

Jews yes...but in essence, if all of Christianity falls under the bracket of Messianic Judaism...then Judaism and Christianity are technically speaking the same faith. That was my point by saying earlier, that for all intense and purposes in this argument, Judaism may as well be a denomination of Christianity...where as that is NOT true for Islam, Oriental Polythesism, Paganism, or Secular athiesm

We can interpret both ways I believe...but that is interpretation, its not applied pragmatics by the authors, but by the zeitgiest of the reader...and they are very different.

I do have a question concerning the Civil War actually. I sort of dont understand why the Federal Union didnt simply accept the Confederate System. The reason being, that up to that point in time, All States in the Union were still Soverign...and therefore, didnt the notations made in the declairation of Independance apply to all those States...? Meaning, that at any time they had the right, under their own freedom of soverignty to make peace and war...Shouldnt President Lincoln have respected their choice to leave the Union...?

I understand he didnt like slavery, and understand that the southern states who formed the confederate were heavily into it. But, if the North depended on the South and their productions from Slavery, then fighting and beating the South wouldnt have helpped because either way, to let them go, or conqure them, you would have to have abolished slavery, or been 100 percent hypocritical...and if the North were not dependant on the South...then frankly, they should have let them go as free States

As I see it, ALL States, and therefore ALL people are now in Bondage to an overhyped Federation. He freed the slaves from private slave drivers...and then tied every single person in the whole Union to Government slavery instead????

I dont understand the American Civil War...and from what I know of the changed in the Federal Government...I dont think I like President Lincoln either. In one respect...of course...I do recognise that the British Empire probably used Slavery far more, and far longer then the Americas...

I'm not in favour of slavery...but I fail to see how creating the Big Government, was either Constitutional, or any better a situation. Its like...Americans speak a lot about the War of Independance...but ive heard almost no American, anytime, mention or speak about the Civil War at all.

Neezar
06-10-2013, 10:12 PM
I do have a question concerning the Civil War actually. I sort of dont understand why the Federal Union didnt simply accept the Confederate System. The reason being, that up to that point in time, All States in the Union were still Soverign...and therefore, didnt the notations made in the declairation of Independance apply to all those States...? Meaning, that at any time they had the right, under their own freedom of soverignty to make peace and war...Shouldnt President Lincoln have respected their choice to leave the Union...?


Soon after Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency in November 1860, seven southern states seceded from the Union. In March 1861, after he was inaugurated as the 16th President of the United States, four more followed.

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:


1. Physically the states cannot separate.

2. Secession is unlawful.

3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.

5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.


Lincoln may have thought the fifth point was the most important. If you traveled the earth in 1860, and visited every continent and every nation, you would have found many examples of monarchies, dictatorships, and other examples of authoritarian rule. But in the all the world, you would have found only one major democracy: The United States of America. Democracy had been attempted in one other nation in the eighteenth century - France. Unfortunately, that experiment in self-government deteriorated rapidly, as the citizens resorted more to the guillotine than to the ballot box. From the ashes of that experiment in self-government, rose a dictator who, after seizing control in France, attempted to conquer the continent of Europe.

Those who supported monarchies felt vindicated by the French disaster, but the United States experiment in self-government remained a thorn in their side. Those wishing for democracy could always point across the ocean and say, "It works there. Why can't we try it here"? In 1860 however, it appeared that the thorn had been removed. The monarchists were thrilled with the dissolution of the United States, and many even held parties celebrating the end of democracy.

Lincoln understood this well, and when he described his nation as "the world's last best hope," these were not idle words. Lincoln truly believed that if the war were lost, it would not only have been the end of his political career, or that of his party, or even the end of his nation. He believed that if the war were lost, it would have forever ended the hope of people everywhere for a democratic form of government.

Listed below are some of the comments that Lincoln made against secession.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm

rearnakedchoke
06-11-2013, 12:40 PM
^^^^^
and that is why lincoln is consistently ranked as one of the best presidents ever ... great post!

Tyburn
06-11-2013, 07:34 PM
Soon after Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency in November 1860, seven southern states seceded from the Union. In March 1861, after he was inaugurated as the 16th President of the United States, four more followed.

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:


1. Physically the states cannot separate.

2. Secession is unlawful.

3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.

5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.


6) Lincoln may have thought the fifth point was the most important. If you traveled the earth in 1860, and visited every continent and every nation, you would have found many examples of monarchies, dictatorships, and other examples of authoritarian rule. But in the all the world, you would have found only one major democracy: The United States of America. Democracy had been attempted in one other nation in the eighteenth century - France. Unfortunately, that experiment in self-government deteriorated rapidly, as the citizens resorted more to the guillotine than to the ballot box. From the ashes of that experiment in self-government, rose a dictator who, after seizing control in France, attempted to conquer the continent of Europe.

7) Those who supported monarchies felt vindicated by the French disaster, but the United States experiment in self-government remained a thorn in their side. Those wishing for democracy could always point across the ocean and say, "It works there. Why can't we try it here"? In 1860 however, it appeared that the thorn had been removed. The monarchists were thrilled with the dissolution of the United States, and many even held parties celebrating the end of democracy.

8) Lincoln understood this well, and when he described his nation as "the world's last best hope," these were not idle words. Lincoln truly believed that if the war were lost, it would not only have been the end of his political career, or that of his party, or even the end of his nation. He believed that if the war were lost, it would have forever ended the hope of people everywhere for a democratic form of government.

Listed below are some of the comments that Lincoln made against secession.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm

1) The Physical States do not need to separate physically to be their own individual soverignties. The rest of the entire world, except for Island States have no problem with Physical Land Boarders...Infact as I understood it, the Confederate States lay geographically next to one another...I could see an Issue if, for example, Iowa wanted to join the Confederacy that the issue of land boarders would be difficult...but the US Union manages with Alaska, and Hawaii so its not impossible.

2) Is it unlawful? Or is that a matter of interpretation? I thought that as a Democratic Union of States, that just as States were free to try and join the union, so they could be free to leave. If you force a State to remain in a Union, trust me, I know, the European Union is just like this, then you actually take away the soverignty and free will of the people of that State, the people in that State will hate you for it and feel like what you actually have is an occupation of a free state, which translates your Union into an Empire. As Yours is run by Federal Washington...so Ours in Run financially (and therefore, actually, in practise) Germany.

3) Anarchy...or Freedom? I think it IS true that if the Confederates had split from the Federal Union and flourished...it might have caused other States to try and create unions...but this is where you need to be careful. Do you respect the will of the people in doing that, if they so wish...or do you say NO! Anarchy on a Parliamentarian level is nothing more then the loss of power...now the Federal Union wasnt supposed to be a Government in its own right...just a collection of representatives of the individual State Governments...therefore its a big illusion, that exists only so long as the States stay United...which surely, given that, is a case for each individual state to decide...By using that argument, Lincoln is already saying BIG Government....thats NOT akin to George Washingtons mentality...and I dont really think its consitutional...though, I understand why it HAD to happen if one was going to fight a civil war, or otherwise during the war effort itself.

4) :laugh: Friendly States do not wish to break Union in the first place...and sometimes, letting them go peacefully is the only way to remain "Friends"

5) At Worst, it simply applies the democratic Government to less coverage...at best the Confederacy may have actually been the SECOND democratic country.

6) Yes...The French have never been that successful its true to say. They jumped on the freedom bandwagon from the American Revolutionary War...and unfortunately crashed it. :laugh:

7) Dissolution of The States?? But thats NOT what was happening...it was simply a few States wishing to leave the Union...this did NOT mean the end of the Federal Government! There was no reason why the Federal Government couldnt run the North in the same way it had since its inception. I dont understand why Lincoln took the view that it was total Governance, or none at all...and I dont understand really the relevence with the Monarchists...The Confederate System seemed to be based on the Federal System...didnt they even ellect their own President?? This didnt appear to be the establishment of a wayward Kingdom...but a second Union on the Continent.

Please tell me this wasnt just about power...because thats what it looks like to me. I do not understand why Lincoln could not comprimise with the existance of an independant South. All the reasons above give the impression that the whole Federal System would come crashing down...but we know thats not the case, and I dont believe any Statesman in the Office of President wouldnt know that. So I move to the nearest obvious conclusion...simply that Lincoln couldnt cope with loss of power and governance in the Southern States. Thats a trade mark of an opressor who feels they have some GOD Given Right to rule over a populas that has rejected them.

8) So Lincoln couldnt distinguish between The Union, and Democracy? Are you saying that for Lincoln one could not exist without the other?? Not even in a parallel Union physically located right next door??

Thanks for the insight...I'll go lookey at those quotes :)

Tyburn
06-11-2013, 07:54 PM
Okay...sorry but I really think President Lincoln was wrong...in those quotes, he uses as his premise that its unlawful to leave, a document PRE the Constituion, and tries to say that because History has never seen a state leave, therefore, history never can. Pepetual Unionism...ever expanding, but never contracting...thats a lovely ideal...but it doesnt make departure from the Union unlawful. Its all well and good to try and better the union, but if it doesnt work, there is only so long one should try to make it more perfect before deciding on another course of action.

"The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status"

MY GOD, WTF does he think State Governments are???? The Union was designed to be the sum of all the states...the power flows from the bottom up, NOT the top down..."The Union" should exist without the input of the individual soverignties. I dont know what he thought he was saying there, but thats probably the most dictatorial thing I have EVER heard from a US President...and it just proves my point more. He believed The Union, Himself, was the be all and end all of legal matters. He didnt believe in the soverignty of the individual states at all. Thats undemocratic, thats NOT constitutionalist...THIS is why you have a problem with your Government today, THIS is why your State Governments have no authority, no power, no rights, no freedom, except that which is dictated to them by a Federal Entity that exists in its own right "If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution."

Hate to say it...but under the guise of that above...I would say that Americans, even if they didnt want to leave the union, might have needed a revolution.

I had thought this was the way it probably was...but I wanted to be sure because I didnt honnestly know the facts...now I have actual quotes I can see quite plainly.

I think your nation would have been better off without the war entirely.

Lincoln should have just let them go. Its ironic, that the very man who most wanted to save Democrasy, and preserve the longevity of the Union in order to keep alive the Washington Ideals, effectively, distroyed it, by trying to cling to power, and by violating the freedoms of the individual states.

He may have won the war...but at what cost? I dont think George Washington would recognise your Union today

rearnakedchoke
06-12-2013, 05:11 PM
Okay...sorry but I really think President Lincoln was wrong...in those quotes, he uses as his premise that its unlawful to leave, a document PRE the Constituion, and tries to say that because History has never seen a state leave, therefore, history never can. Pepetual Unionism...ever expanding, but never contracting...thats a lovely ideal...but it doesnt make departure from the Union unlawful. Its all well and good to try and better the union, but if it doesnt work, there is only so long one should try to make it more perfect before deciding on another course of action.

"The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status"

MY GOD, WTF does he think State Governments are???? The Union was designed to be the sum of all the states...the power flows from the bottom up, NOT the top down..."The Union" should exist without the input of the individual soverignties. I dont know what he thought he was saying there, but thats probably the most dictatorial thing I have EVER heard from a US President...and it just proves my point more. He believed The Union, Himself, was the be all and end all of legal matters. He didnt believe in the soverignty of the individual states at all. Thats undemocratic, thats NOT constitutionalist...THIS is why you have a problem with your Government today, THIS is why your State Governments have no authority, no power, no rights, no freedom, except that which is dictated to them by a Federal Entity that exists in its own right "If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution."

Hate to say it...but under the guise of that above...I would say that Americans, even if they didnt want to leave the union, might have needed a revolution.

I had thought this was the way it probably was...but I wanted to be sure because I didnt honnestly know the facts...now I have actual quotes I can see quite plainly.

I think your nation would have been better off without the war entirely.

Lincoln should have just let them go. Its ironic, that the very man who most wanted to save Democrasy, and preserve the longevity of the Union in order to keep alive the Washington Ideals, effectively, distroyed it, by trying to cling to power, and by violating the freedoms of the individual states.

He may have won the war...but at what cost? I dont think George Washington would recognise your Union today

seems to have done a good job ... doubt any state will try and secede anytime soon ... some states may talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, none of them have the cajones to do it ..

Tyburn
06-12-2013, 07:50 PM
seems to have done a good job ... doubt any state will try and secede anytime soon ... some states may talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, none of them have the cajones to do it ..

Well, now they cant for financial reasons. You see...if the Union exists as the sum of its members, then it has next to no power without those members. The Union is therefore a Hive Mind of all the individual States to show a collective face in world affaires, to coordinate Trade, to run a military.

But Lincoln says that the States have no autonomous power...therefore a collection of States also has no autonomous power...therefore the Federal Union is not just a collection of States...there has to be something added to that collection to suply it with legitamate power.

That "Thing" is a Federal Government autonomous of the State System...The Extra, Golden State, that distributes power, and provides for all the individual States. This is something I dont think that George Washington would have wanted for VERY obvious reasons...its just a form of dictation of One State, over all the others. That One State is Primarily in the Federal Triangle of the Capitol City....and then in Federal Outposts in each of the States.

When times are good, I suppose they are fantastic...BUT without each individual State fighting its OWN CAUSE, which it can not do because of the Bi-Partisan issues...noone fights for their State anymore, they fight for their political party...and thats how each State has slowly been reduced to nothing more then a Council...which is now so completely hardwired into an illicit Federal System, that if you were to remove the Golden State...there WOULD be anarchy because the States are absolutely reliant on the Federal Government...Infact, the method the Federal Government use now is deprivation to any State Government that decides it wont play ball.

The Federal Government holds the money...and now that times are hard, you see the extent of the damage done. It appears that every single President from the time of Abraham Lincoln, to the Present, has unfortunately, and probably unwittingly, at least a few generations after the civil war, been aiding and abetting a system contrary to Constituional Values.

The President of the United States of America is more of a Monarch then ANY Monarchy of the current world. Forget the "checks and ballences" because those doing the "checks and ballences" they are dependant upon the Federal System for their existance...

The US needs a period of Devolution. It needs an INDEPENDANT President who will break up the Bi-Partisan System, transfer powers back to the State Governments, and be the figure head that he is supposed to be outside of war.

Only with a Constituionalistic approach can one really claim that dream. Im sorry, but its Constituion FIRST Union Second...and THATS the grave error that Lincoln made. He comprimised the beliefs of the Constituion to try and save the Union...and he basically turned the Union into a monster which then devoured the constituion. The United States has never been the same since...The reason no other country really knew this was because of the pre-world war issolationism. Thats the other trouble...if you depend on yourself as a Union, then you bind yourself together against soverignty...which only works as long as coorperation works...and nothing Gold can stay, as Robert Frost would say :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
06-26-2013, 07:52 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/texas-abortion-bill/index.html?hpt=us_c2

passed the merry christmas bill ... but could pass the abortion bill in time ..... but i for one think killing this bill was a good thing ...