ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> >>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
>>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.
>

You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Karen Winter lied:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as
>> > something other than property is rapidly diminishing.
>>
>> It's a matter of perception to a degree,
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>
>> but the
>> evidence is, you are incorrect.
>
> The evidence is I am correct.
>
>
>> Companion animals,
>
> Pets. The nauseating politically correct term "companion animals" has
> not caught on, and will not.

Well, here in Ohio I used to call my ex-wife my companion animal. She
reminded me a lot of a dog (besides the obvious "bitch" connection) in that
she used to take her toys (lipstick, eyebrow pencil, armpit hair mower,
lift-and-separate bra, etc. and strew them all over the bathroom like a dog
does with their bones and squeekie toys.

>
>
>> certainly, are being seen less and less as property.
>
> Not true. A few isolated bastions of PC weirdness, e.g. San Francisco
> - it doesn't get weirder than Frisco - have made halting moves in this
> direction, but it stopped there. The Dubuque, IA department of animal
> control is not going to be referring to "companion animals" any time
> soon, if ever, and people there will continue to *own* their pets, not
> be referred to (nauseatingly) as their "guardians". I dare say, Karen,
> that that Santa Fe, NM department of animal control probably does not
> refer to pets as "companion animals", and undoubtedly *does* recognize
> that people own their pets, and may buy and sell them.
>
>
>> I gave some examples of why this is so earlier. It's
>> telling that even the anti-AR posters here, in general,
>> do not argue that companion animals
>
> Pets. Speak plain English, Karen.
>
>> are *merely*
>> property, but that, although animals are legally property,
>> their "owners" nevertheless don't see them in that way,
>> and don't treat them like property.
>
> Pet owners do see their pets as property. They don't treat them the
> same way they would treat a stepladder, but that doesn't change the
> fact that pet owners regard their pets as property.

Some folks treat them worse than they do their stepladder... I bring my
ladder in when I am done with it and put it away. My neighbor makes his dog
sit out in the snow and cold all winter. The poor girl whines and cries all
night.

Whether you call them pets, companion animals, dogs, cats, or as I do with
my little one... "Pal," It isn't what you call them, it is how you interact
with them.

I don't invite the local pig to come inside at night, nor do I fix a meal
and serve it on a placemat next to my stove. I do for my pal. And most of
the time I would even fix a meal for my ex and serve it on a placemat...
even putting it on the table since she had such a hard time bending over for
all the flubber.

The ex is history now... my pal remains.I call that an improvement, no
matter where I live.
>

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> >>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> >>>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> >>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>>>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
>>>>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>>>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
>>>>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

> wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "oscar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> I don't invite the local pig to come inside at night, nor do I fix a meal
> >> and serve it on a placemat next to my stove. I do for my pal.
> >
> > The difference between your 'pal' and the ham on your plate being?
>
> The difference is about 400 pounds and my pal is eating the pig too. If it
> is good enough for her, it is good enough for me.

If that's the only difference, you happily eat animals who could be pals.

> to get around what "YOU" want, and then deciding to act as my dietary
> advisor by telling me to get off animal protein. In other words I said one
> thing, but you read something different... in your mind at least.

When your attitude is somewhat more serious, I'll be more inclined
to spend the time and effort to read what you're saying. Otherwise..

> Some people eat dogs. In some places cows are sacred, but not America. Many
> an "Old Paint" has saved a human life by running their hooves off... and
> then being eaten in the end for food. Some animals even eat people. I am not
> trying to change the natural order of the universe... you are. I eat meat,

I'm not.. you are. In the natural order humans are a frugivores.

wrote:

<snip>

> Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the
> Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving the
> grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people, per the
> Constitution.

One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
has jurisdiction over them.

<snip>

Karen Winter, lying statist ordinaire, blabbered:
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the
> > Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving the
> > grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people, per the
> > Constitution.
>
> One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
> bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
> has jurisdiction over them.

Karen supports government. <yawn>

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the
>> Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving the
>> grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people, per
>> the Constitution.
>
> One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
> bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
> has jurisdiction over them.
>
> <snip>

Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business
owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for
national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not
one of those... so sorry... just because they have overstepped the law of
the land does not negate my position... in fact it reinforces it!

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Karen Winter, lying statist ordinaire, blabbered:
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the
>> > Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving
>> > the
>> > grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people,
>> > per the
>> > Constitution.
>>
>> One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
>> bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
>> has jurisdiction over them.
>
> Karen supports government. <yawn>
>
Well, I support government too... Constitutional Government... and then the
forced support folks like Karen and friends have foisted on others. It is
now way past time for this to stop.

wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Karen Winter, lying statist ordinaire, blabbered:
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the
> >> > Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving
> >> > the
> >> > grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people,
> >> > per the
> >> > Constitution.
> >>
> >> One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
> >> bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
> >> has jurisdiction over them.
> >
> > Karen supports government. <yawn>
> >
> Well, I support government too... Constitutional Government...

Karen Winter - that's the real name of 'glorfindel' (bleaaaghh - what a
shit posting handle) - has long claimed to be an "anarchist". It's
laughable bullshit. She is an ardent totalitarian statist.


> and then the
> forced support folks like Karen and friends have foisted on others. It is
> now way past time for this to stop.

wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message

>>One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
>>bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
>>has jurisdiction over them.

>><snip>

> Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business
> owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for
> national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not
> one of those...

Where does the Constitution state that the national government
cannot set aside land for national parks? Many of the parks
are in areas which were under control of the national government
as territories before they were granted statehood.

I have no problem with both state and federal government, and private
individuals, setting aside land for parks. The more wilderness areas,
the better. There are already far too many intrusions into
what are supposed to be "wilderness" areas, such as cut-rate
grazing at below-market rates on federal land. These areas are not
supposed to subsidize inefficient ranchers; they are supposed to
preserve some remnant of our natural ecosystem for future
generations of *ALL* our residents and visitors.

Karen Winter, statist ordinaire, screamed:

> wrote:
>
> > "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
>
> >>One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
> >>bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
> >>has jurisdiction over them.
>
> >><snip>
>
> > Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business
> > owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for
> > national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not
> > one of those...
>
> Where does the Constitution state that the national government
> cannot set aside land for national parks?

Wrong question, Karen; but as a doctrinaire totalitarian-leaning
statist, you *would* get it wrong in this way. The correct question
is, where in the Constitution does it state that the national
government *may* set aside land for parks?

Constitution 101 for Karen Winter: under the 10th amendment, those
powers not *explicitly* delegated to the federal government by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are
reserved to the states or to the people. Unless the Constitution
explicitly authorizes the federal government to set aside land for
parks, or unless some reasonable interpretation of the Constitution can
be stretched to cover it, the activity is prohibited to the federal
government.

Whether the Constitution does, either explicitly or by a reasonable
implicit argument, grant the power to maintain parks to the federal
government is irrelevant. What is relevant, here, is that you *assume*
that the federal government can do things unless the Constitution
expressly forbids them, and that interpretation is WRONG. The correct
interpretation is that the federal government may NOT do things, unless
the Constitution authorizes them.

As a doctrinaire totalitarian leading statist, of course, Karen
naturally makes the wrong assumption.

Leif Erikson wrote:

wrote:

>>>><snip>

>>>Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business
>>>owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for
>>>national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not
>>>one of those...

>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government
>>cannot set aside land for national parks?

> Wrong question,

No, correct question. The federal government has been setting
aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
There is quite a long precedent for it. To set that aside
would require some sort of legal challenge to an established
policy. National parks are for the benefit of the whole
population, like a national currency or a national highway
system. I suspect something could be found under interstate
commerce regulation. We'd have to look up what the original
legal authorization was.

<snip>

Karen Winter, would-be totalitarian and statist ordinaire, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>><snip>
>
> >>>Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business
> >>>owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for
> >>>national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not
> >>>one of those...
>
> >>Where does the Constitution state that the national government
> >>cannot set aside land for national parks?
>
> > Wrong question,
>
> No, correct question. The federal government has been setting
> aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.

No, WRONG question, Karen. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing
"vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy?

The question is WRONG, Karen, you totalitarian asshole, for the reasons
I elaborated: you asked where in the Constitution it says they may
not, and I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government
may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. If
the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do some
thing, Karen, then the legal and constitutional presumption is that the
federal government MAY NOT do that thing.

That's just how the U.S. Constitution is, Karen. It is how it has
alway been.

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel:

>>>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government
>>>>cannot set aside land for national parks?

>>>Wrong question,

>>No, correct question. The federal government has been setting
>>aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.


> No, WRONG question. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing
> "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy?

In legal terms, it's precedent, not tradition.

> I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government
> may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do.

The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
are the representatives of the people. Unless there is some
legal impediment, Congress ought to be able to express the
will of the people -- as the Constitution states -- to set
up a national system of parks.

<snip>

Karen Winter lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Glorfindel:

No, it's Karen Winter. Leave it alone. You are Karen Winter, and we
know you're Karen Winter. Use whatever posting name you like, but your
denial that you are Karen Winter is false. You are Karen Winter.
Leave "Karen Winter" as I have written it.


>
> >>>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government
> >>>>cannot set aside land for national parks?
>
> >>>Wrong question,
>
> >>No, correct question. The federal government has been setting
> >>aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
>
>
> > No, WRONG question. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing
> > "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy?
>
> In legal terms, it's precedent, not tradition.

Another appeal to government - how lovely, Karen-the-statist.

> > I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government
> > may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do.
>
> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
> are the representatives of the people.

Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the
Constitution does not allow it to do, Karen. This is basic civics.

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
>
>>>One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly
>>>bears are still found are national parks. The federal government
>>>has jurisdiction over them.
>
>>><snip>
>
>> Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no
>> business
>> owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for
>> national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are
>> not
>> one of those...
>
> Where does the Constitution state that the national government
> cannot set aside land for national parks? Many of the parks
> are in areas which were under control of the national government
> as territories before they were granted statehood.

My friend... the Constitution lists the activities the Federal Government
CAN engage in. So your not being able to find where it says you can't is
correct. Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom along with their
practical common sense realized that a listing of what couldn't be done
would require a crystal ball into the future and be impossibly huge and
impractical. They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things
which a central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and
as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities to
the individual states or the citizens of those states.


> I have no problem with both state and federal government, and private
> individuals, setting aside land for parks.

On a personal level, fine. But we are supposed to have a government of laws
not of changing opinions and desires...men's desires. That we are getting
away from this concept is why we find ourselves in so many pickles today.

>The more wilderness areas,
> the better.

That is your opinion... but you can only effect your opinion through
Constitutional laws by representatives you elect. But... using your opinion
to illustrate a point... if the more wilderness the better, then it
logically follows that 100% total wilderness would be the best possible
condition. Now you may very well think that... I do not. I also don't think
you are quite ready to bulldoze your home, returning it to wilderness, and
go live on the moon... or do you? When you do, stop by my place and convince
me to join you.


> There are already far too many intrusions into
> what are supposed to be "wilderness" areas, such as cut-rate
> grazing at below-market rates on federal land.

Who gets to determine what "too many" is... you? I didn't think we had a
king or a dictator in this country. Congratulations on your promotion.

> These areas are not
> supposed to subsidize inefficient ranchers; they are supposed to
> preserve some remnant of our natural ecosystem for future
> generations of *ALL* our residents and visitors.

Fine... again if the people, collectively in any given state, so determine
that, it is within their right to do so... but the Constitution has left
that to the states precisely to prevent the Federal Government from becoming
a Leviathan...

Oscar

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Karen Winter, would-be totalitarian and statist ordinaire, lied:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>><snip>
>>
>> >>>Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no
>> >>>business
>> >>>owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed
>> >>>for
>> >>>national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are
>> >>>not
>> >>>one of those...
>>
>> >>Where does the Constitution state that the national government
>> >>cannot set aside land for national parks?
>>
>> > Wrong question,
>>
>> No, correct question. The federal government has been setting
>> aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
>
> No, WRONG question, Karen. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing
> "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy?
>
> The question is WRONG, Karen, you totalitarian asshole, for the reasons
> I elaborated: you asked where in the Constitution it says they may
> not, and I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government
> may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. If
> the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do some
> thing, Karen, then the legal and constitutional presumption is that the
> federal government MAY NOT do that thing.
>
> That's just how the U.S. Constitution is, Karen. It is how it has
> alway been.
>

Good show L.E...

Karen, uncle Teddy R came well after the Constitution... and yes, some
things are being done that are not really allowed.. as I said, that is why
we find ourselves in a pickle today. If you feel strongly about this...
fine. Do something about it... but do it correctly... meaning do it
legally.... meaning, propose an amendment and get it passed.

Sabe?

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Glorfindel:
>
>>>>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government
>>>>>cannot set aside land for national parks?
>
>>>>Wrong question,
>
>>>No, correct question. The federal government has been setting
>>>aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
>
>
>> No, WRONG question. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing
>> "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy?
>
> In legal terms, it's precedent, not tradition.
>
>> I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government
>> may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do.
>
> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
> are the representatives of the people. Unless there is some
> legal impediment, Congress ought to be able to express the
> will of the people -- as the Constitution states -- to set
> up a national system of parks.

(as the Constitution states -- to set up a national system of parks.) New
one on me...

Here is what I found in my copy:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the
subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current
Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall
be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of
the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased
by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.

Still looking....

Wow Karen is it in your copy? Do you have a copy? Have you ever even read
it?

The CATO Institute will send you one free... just go to their website and
ask.... and trust me... it won't hurt a bit!

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
>>are the representatives of the people.

> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the
> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics.

If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then
powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people.
As their elected representatives, Congress are the people.
So, unless there is some legal reason why the people
should not have the authority to act, the people, in the
form of their elected representatives, can establish a
national park system. The people did so, by act of Congress.
The executive branch of the government signed the act into
law, and the legislative branch has, so far, established no legal
challenge. So all three branches of government concur -- the
people have decided that they want a national park system.

Don't YOU want a national park system? I certainly do.

wrote:

<snip>

> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things
> which a central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and
> as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities to
> the individual states or the citizens of those states.

Glorfindel:

But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
level in the persons of their congressional representatives.
The states are not completely sovereign. The Civil War
established that.

<snip>

Karen Winter lied and showed her ass again:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Glorfindel wrote:

No, *Karen Winter* wrote. Leave it alone, bitch.


>
>>> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
>>> are the representatives of the people.
>
>
>> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the
>> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics.
>
>
> If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then
> powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people.
> As their elected representatives, Congress are the people.

False, but a typical statist's response. Congress is
the people's representative lawmaking body *at the
federal level only*.

You are wrong. You're also a lying asshole.

Karen Winter flim-flammed and dissembled:

> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a
>> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as
>> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities
>> to the individual states or the citizens of those states.
>
>
> Glorfindel:

No, Karen Winter. You are Karen Winter. Drop the
charade, Karen.


>
> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
> level in the persons of their congressional representatives.

Congress may not pass laws that establish things not
permitted to the federal government in the
Constitution. It's that simple. Your error is that
easy to establish.

You are not a constitutional scholar in any way, and it
is obvious that you are pulling constitutional
interpretations out your ass.

Leif Erikson wrote:

>> wrote:

>> <snip>

>>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which
>>> a central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and
>>> as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of
>>> activities to the individual states or the citizens of those states.

>> Glorfindel:

>> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
>> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
>> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
>> level in the persons of their congressional representatives.


> Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the
> federal government in the Constitution.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution which
does not permit the national government to set up national
parks.

Some things are not permitted, for example to establish a state
religion. These things are explicitly stated in the Constitution
or the Bill of Rights. Things which do not violate any of the
provisions stated in the Constitution can be established by the
authority given to the people, by the elected representatives
of the people in Congress. If someone believes a specific
law is unconstitutional, it can be challenged in court. That's
what the legal system is for: to determine if something is
constitutional or not.

If you think national parks are unconstitutional, hire a lawyer
and challenge the law. Don't you think you would be better
occupied challenging the constitutionality of Bush's wiretapping
scheme?

Leif Erikson wrote:

>> Glorfindel wrote:

>>>> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
>>>> are the representatives of the people.

>>> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the
>>> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics.

So -- where does the Constitution say anything about not
allowing national parks?

>> If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then
>> powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people.
>> As their elected representatives, Congress are the people.

> Congress is the people's
> representative lawmaking body *at the federal level only*.

And they have the right to set up *national* parks
at the federal level.

> wrote in message ...

> (as the Constitution states --

I find it incredible that a poster who votes for Bush "Stop throwing
the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!",
keeps bringing up the U.S Constitution in response to invitations
to the American public to exercise their constitutionally protected
right of freedom of speech, concerning the protection of native
species, in their own right, and as part of their/our natural heritage.

I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
as documented below, before believing you're not just using
the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.

'Despite opposition by many prominent Republicans, Dick Cheney
and George W. Bush are mounting an intensive public relations
campaign to justify their pre-ordained invasion of Iraq. A preemptive
strike against Iraq would violate the Constitution and the United Nations
Charter.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress, not the
president, to debate and decide to declare war on another country.
The War Powers Resolution provides that the "constitutional powers
of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States
Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific
statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack
upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its armed
forces."

Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an
invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories,
possessions or armed forces. President Bush's lawyers have
concluded that he needs no new approval from Congress. They
cite a 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in
the Persian Gulf, and the September 14, 2001 Congressional
resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible
for the Sept. 11 attacks.

These two resolutions do not provide a basis to circumvent
Congressional approval for attacking Iraq. The January 12, 1991
Persian Gulf Resolution authorized the use of force pursuant to
U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which was directed at
ensuring the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. That license ended
on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalized a cease-fire and notified
the Security Council. The September 14, 2001 resolution authorized
the use of armed force "against those responsible for the recent
[Sept. 11] attacks against the United States." There is no evidence
that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations
Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United
States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. It requires the
United States to settle all disputes by peaceful means and not use
military force in the absence of an armed attack. The U.N. Charter
empowers only the Security Council to authorize the use of force,
unless a member state is acting in individual or collective self-defense.
Iraq has not attacked this country, or any other country in the past
11 years. None of Iraq's neighbors have appealed to the Security
Council to protect them from an imminent attack by Iraq, because
they do not feel threatened.
.......'
http://www.representativepress.org/V...tionalLaw.html

'And then "the leaks" began. The photographs and testimonials of
torture had empowered those on the inside to contact the media with
the bombshells. We learned that Bush’s hired guns had secretly
penned two tomes, one for the Defense Department and the other
for the Justice Department. Both documents purport to justify the
use of torture under the President’s war-making power,
notwithstanding the Constitution’s clear mandate that only Congress
can make the laws.

The Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution: "Congress
shall have the power - to define and punish - offenses against the law
of nations; to declare war - and make rules concerning captures on
land and water; - [and] to make rules for the government and regulation
of the land and naval forces."

As commander-in-chief, however, the President has a "constitutionally
superior position" to Congress, according to the memo written for the
Defense Department. It seems the president’s men have now taken on
the tripartite Separation of Powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution.

Their constitutional apostasy flies in the face of the landmark ruling in
the Korean War case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
where the Supreme Court held, "In the framework of our Constitution,
the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes
the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." For, as the Court noted, "The
Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress
alone in both good and bad times."

Try as they might, the lawyers commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld and
presidential counsel Alberto R. Gonzales were unable to find a loophole
in the Torture Convention’s absolute proscription on torture. "No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat
of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may
be invoked as a justification for torture," according to the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.

The Torture Convention, ratified by the United States, is part of the
supreme law of the land under the Constitution. Congress implemented
our obligations under this treaty by enacting the Torture Statute, which
provides 20 years, life in prison, or even the death penalty if death results
from torture committed by a U.S. citizen abroad. The USA PATRIOT
Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit torture to the Torture Statute.

Bush’s lawyers used tortured reasoning to opine that the Torture Statute
cannot be utilized to prosecute Americans in Guantanamo because it lies
within the "territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is
within the United States."

The Bush administration has hypocritically taken the opposite position
in denying the Guantanamo prisoners access to U.S. courts to challenge
their indefinite detention.

The Torture Convention prohibits the intentional infliction of severe
physical or mental pain or suffering on a person to (a) obtain a
confession, (b) punish him, or (c) intimidate or coerce him based on
discrimination of any kind. To violate this treaty, the pain or suffering
must be inflicted "by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity."

Ashcroft’s legal eagles redefined torture, narrowing it to require the
infliction of physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain
accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment
of bodily function, or even death." For mental pain or suffering, they
would require "significant psychological harm of significant duration,
e.g., lasting for months or even years."

The Istanbul Protocol of 9 August 1999 is the Manual on the Effective
Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It sets forth international
guidelines for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Included in the Protocol’s list of torture methods are rape, blunt trauma,
forced positioning, asphyxiation, crush injuries, humiliations, death threats,
forced engagement in practices violative of religion, and threat of attacks
by dogs. The photographs and reports from prisoners in Abu Ghraib
include all of these techniques.

Moreover, the Defense Department analysis maintained that a torturer
could get off if he acted in "good faith," not thinking his actions would
result in severe mental harm. If the torturer based his conduct on the
advice in these memos, he would, according to this argument, have
acted in good faith.

Who authored the "whorific" rationalizations for the Justice and
Defense Departments? A Washington Post editorial called it "a
shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture." William J.
Haynes II, Bush’s nominee for a lifetime seat on the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeal, oversaw the preparation of the report for the
Department of Defense. And another Bush nominee for a federal
judgeship, former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, now
a permanent judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, drafted
the document for the Department of Justice. How cozy.

Not only has Bush received legal [sic] advice on how to get around
our obligations under the Torture Convention and the Torture Statute.
His lawyer Alberto Gonzales, opining on whether to apply the Geneva
Conventions to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, told Bush the "new
paradigm" of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva’s strict
limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint
some of its provisions."

Evidently the Bush administration thinks prohibitions on torture, and
Congress’ lawmaking authority in our own Constitution, are quaint.

Gonzales, who is often mentioned as a prospective Bush nominee
for the Supreme Court, went on to assure his boss that "your
determination [to bypass the Geneva Conventions] would create a
reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 [the War Crimes Statute]
does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future
prosecution." So Bush’s own decision to bypass Geneva gives him
a defense to violating Geneva.
...
The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for
high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a
war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute
grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered
war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996. Even if Bush’s
lawyers could successfully parse the meaning of torture, they cannot
deny that the atrocities we’ve seen constitute inhuman treatment.
...'
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0406/S00167.htm

Well... what say you, oscar?

Karen Winter, statist ordinaire, got it wrong again:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>> wrote:
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which
>>>> a central governing body would need to do for all of the country,
>>>> and as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of
>>>> activities to the individual states or the citizens of those states.
>
>
>>> Glorfindel:

No, Karen Winter. Leave it alone.

>
>
>>> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
>>> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
>>> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
>>> level in the persons of their congressional representatives.
>
>
>
>> Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the
>> federal government in the Constitution.
>
>
> However, there is nothing in the Constitution which
> does not permit the national government to set up national
> parks.

Karen: there must be something IN the Constitution
that *DOES* permit them to set up national parks. You
keep getting it backward. The federal government is
not permitted to do anything not expressly forbidden to
it by the Constitution; it is permitted to do ONLY
those things delegated to it in the Constitution.

You are fundamentally wrong on this.

Karen Winter lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>> Karen Winter lied:
>
>
>>>>> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress
>>>>> are the representatives of the people.
>
>
>>>> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the
>>>> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics.
>
>
> So -- where does the Constitution say anything about not
> allowing national parks?


Karen: you keep making the same error. The burden of
evidence is on you to find something in the
Constitution that ALLOWS the government to set up parks.

This is funny: you are making an extra-constitutional
argument for more government power! John Mercer was
absolute right about you, Karen:

I think that if you were a real anarchist, you
would be ashamed of [your jackbooted
mother-and-child
murdering son]. But we both know that you're not.


Not just you both - we *all* know you're no anarchist,
Karen, and never were.


>>> If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then
>>> powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people.
>>> As their elected representatives, Congress are the people.
>
>
>> Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the federal
>> level only*.
>
>
> And they have the right to set up *national* parks
> at the federal level.

Not unless the Constitution provides the authority,
either expressly or as an implied function of some
other power GRANTED to the federal government under the
Constitution.

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel:

>>> Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the
>>> federal level only*.

>> And they have the right to set up *national* parks
>> at the federal level.

> Not unless the Constitution provides the authority, either expressly or
> as an implied function of some other power GRANTED to the federal
> government under the Constitution.


It did so: Congress authorized national parks.

If anyone thinks it's unconstitutional, he has a right to hire
a lawyer and fight it in court. Go right ahead.

pearl wrote:

<snip>

> I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
> as documented below, before believing you're not just using
> the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.

Both he and Leif are. There are so many more
unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
they attack *national parks*?

<snip>

> Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an
> invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories,
> possessions or armed forces.

<snip>

> A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations
> Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United
> States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution.

<snip>
> use of torture

New photos have just come out -- it's in U.S. prisons in
several areas. Clearly war crimes.

<snip>
> ..
> The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for
> high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a
> war crime.

Bush certainly should be impeached.

His administration has also violated many of the Constitutionally-
protected civil rights of U.S. citizens through the Patriot
Act, illegal wiretapping, and other actions. He was not even
elected legally.

The U.S. government is clearly under the control of
Italian-style corporate fascists -- and Leif and Oscar are
attacking the *national park system*? It's insane.

Karen Winter lied and committed further errors:
> shithead lied:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
> > as documented below, before believing you're not just using
> > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.
>
> Both he and Leif are.

I am not, and I doubt the other guy is, either.

I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
constitutionally provided power. My point in this is that your - Karen
Winter's - belief that they can exist because they aren't forbidden is
flatly wrong. Furthermore, I gleefully point out that you are emerging
as the ardent supporter of intrusive, invasive government - it can do
whatever isn't prohibited to it, rather than it can do *only* what is
constitutionally permitted to it - that John Mercer and I always said
you have been.


> There are so many more
> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
> they attack *national parks*?

I am not attacking national parks. I am attacking your totalitarian
statist's rationale for government's doing whatever it wants, Karen.
You are, indeed, a totalitarian statist, Karen, just as I have said for
nearly seven years, and as John Mercer has said for even longer.

Karen Winter, pathological liar, lied again:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied and showed her fat ass again:
>
> >>> Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the
> >>> federal level only*.
>
> >> And they have the right to set up *national* parks
> >> at the federal level.
>
> > Not unless the Constitution provides the authority, either expressly or
> > as an implied function of some other power GRANTED to the federal
> > government under the Constitution.
>
>
> It did so: Congress authorized national parks.

Congress has passed lots of laws subsequently held to be
unconstitutional, Karen. The fact that Congress passed laws
authorizing the parks is not evidence that the Constitution provides
for that power.

You don't know what you're talking about regarding the Constitution,
Karen; not surprising. As a totalitarian statist, you would pretty
much tear it up in order to do what you think should be done, anyway.

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
> > as documented below, before believing you're not just using
> > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.
>
> Both he and Leif are. There are so many more
> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
> they attack *national parks*?

Anything that may in any way disturb their precious livestock industry.

> <snip>
>
> > Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an
> > invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories,
> > possessions or armed forces.
>
> <snip>
>
> > A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations
> > Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United
> > States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution.
>
> <snip>
> > use of torture
>
> New photos have just come out -- it's in U.S. prisons in
> several areas. Clearly war crimes.
>
> <snip>
> > ..
> > The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for
> > high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a
> > war crime.
>
> Bush certainly should be impeached.
>
> His administration has also violated many of the Constitutionally-
> protected civil rights of U.S. citizens through the Patriot
> Act, illegal wiretapping, and other actions. He was not even
> elected legally.
>
> The U.S. government is clearly under the control of
> Italian-style corporate fascists -- and Leif and Oscar are
> attacking the *national park system*? It's insane.

"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known
by his own fruit. For from thorns men do not gather figs, nor
from a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of
the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is
good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart
bringeth forth that which is evil; for of the abundance of his
heart his mouth speaketh." Lk 6:39-45

stupid Lesley histrionically screamed:

> Karen Winter, totalitarian statist, lied:
>
> > stupid Lesley histrionically screamed:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions
> > > as documented below, before believing you're not just using
> > > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so.
> >
> > Both he and Leif are. There are so many more
> > unconstitutional and egregious violations of law
> > and the constitution by the Bush government, yet
> > they attack *national parks*?
>
> Anything that may in any way disturb their precious livestock industry.
>

No; just not letting totalitarian statist Karen Winter get away with
her bullshit misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Leif Erikson wrote:

>>Leif Erikson wrote:

> Congress has passed lots of laws subsequently held to be
> unconstitutional. The fact that Congress passed laws
> authorizing the parks is not evidence that the Constitution provides
> for that power.

It does show Congress -- which is full of constitutional
lawyers -- saw no Constitutional barrier to the law. No
legal challenge to the law has indicated anyone else except
a few weirdos like you do either.

<snip>


> As a totalitarian statist, you would pretty
> much tear it up in order to do what you think should be done, anyway.

Not me -- talk to your buddy Dubya and his handlers about that.

Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>
> I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
> easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
> constitutionally provided power.

As I said. As every rational person knows. As Congress believed
when Congress authorized the system, the president signed, and
the court system had no challenge to the law.

You're just trying to pick a fight, Leif.

If you think the park system is consistent with "some
constitutionally provided power" then what do you think that
power is?

Karen winter, chronic liar, reflexively lied again:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably
> > easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some
> > constitutionally provided power.
>
> As I said.

No, Karen. That's *not* what you said. What you said is a FLATLY
WRONG interpretation of the Constitution: that if it doesn't forbid
something to the federal government, Congress may pass a law to achieve
it. That is *exactly* backward. One does not look in the Constitution
to find those things that are forbidden to the government, and conclude
that the government may do anything that isn't listed; RATHER, one
looks in the Constitution to see what it says the government may do,
and if you don't find it, it is by presumption forbidden.

You are wrong. You're also pig-headed. You're also a thorough-going
asshole.

BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?