Apply Now!

The war on the West thru Christmas

Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
pandora2112 said:
Actually recently read an article where some churches are renting school auditoriums. I think it's a great idea because it generates income for the school....
Click to expand...
I think it's a great idea even if the school doesn't charge anything. Schools are built for the communities, and the community should be able to use it, be that community a church group, Boy Scouts, the quilting club or whatever the community has going for it.

pandora2112 said:
...my only caveat is if you have a school group of Christian youth if someone wants a Pagan youth or Jewish group you can't say oh no!
Click to expand...
I think you can say oh no. It's unreasonable to expect a school or any other entity to accommodate everyone for every reason all the time (back to the pleasing all of the people all of the time deal). "Well, if they can have a Chess Club, then I should be allowed to have a Backgammon Club, and you should have to provide me with a room for meetings, because if they get to have something then I should get to have it, toooooooo waaa, waaa, waaa and if I don't get to have it then they shouldn't be allowed to have it eeeeeeeether waaa, waaa, waaa."

The people who think that way are the same ones who play musical chairs with the same number of kids as chairs.
 
pandora2112

pandora2112

Seasoned Expediter
Never had a problem with real police, I've always given respect and gotten respect...it's all in the approach.

)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
 
AMonger

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
pandora2112 said:
Never had a problem with real police, I've always given respect and gotten respect...it's all in the approach.

)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
Click to expand...
Ok, now we're kind of mixing threads, but since you bring it up.

It's a bit of a numbers game. Most of us go long periods of time with little-to-no contact with those real police. Expediting or trucking increases our chance of contact, as would living in a bad area or other factors, some of them beyond our control. Forex, maybe cops want to run one of their unconstitutional road blocks to check for seat belts (another constitutional violation) or drunk drivers or whatever, and you just happen to be driving down that road that day and you're the unlucky 6th car... And maybe the cop who stops you didn't get any from his wife last night and they had a fight and you're about to be on the receiving end of his bad mood. You decrease your odds of having a problem the more deferential and respectful you are, but maybe your wife didn't give you any last night. I mean, things line up just right in a "perfect storm" kind of way...
Limited government...it's not just a suggestion; it's the law, and for a good reason.
 
Last edited:
Tennesseahawk

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Limited government has nothing to do with it. The Constitution, as I see it, only limits the federal government on what it can/can't do. State and local governments, however, are able to create whatever system they want, as long as it doesn't break the rules set forth in the many Amendments. Massachusetts, for example, could have an extremely socialist government. I would be ok with that, as it doesn't affect anyone living outside of that state (read country). So, the local yokels can have anything they want to (as CA and NY show), as long as it doesn't tread on the Constitution.
 
pandora2112

pandora2112

Seasoned Expediter
I'm not touching it...I'm going to enjoy my Chattanooga time. Have at it! Debate away...

)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
 
AMonger

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
The 14th Amendment imposes all the Bill of Rights restrictions on the states, so it does.
 
Humble2drive

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Tennesseahawk said:
Limited government has nothing to do with it. The Constitution, as I see it, only limits the federal government on what it can/can't do. State and local governments, however, are able to create whatever system they want, as long as it doesn't break the rules set forth in the many Amendments.
Click to expand...


I don't believe it is correct to say "Limited government has NOTHING to do with it. Amonger's example demonstrates this within the Judicial Branch.
When the Supreme Court of The United States gave it's blessing to roadside sobriety checkpoints, even-though they are unconstitutional it allowed states to simply follow that lead and continue to perform them:

"Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means."
Click to expand...


There you have a decision from the top at the Federal level *which allows each and every state to follow suit.

Tennesseahawk said:
So, the local yokels can have anything they want to (as CA and NY show), as long as it doesn't tread on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Sticking to the example given. Sobriety checkpoints do " tread on the Constitution" and without the Supreme Court's precedent setting decision the states most probably would have determined them to be unconstitutional.

A few, such as your state of MI have done so; however, most have succumbed to political influences ( MADD, etc.) to simply defer to the central courts decision.

. . . the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example.
Opinion of Lawrence Taylor author of the standard text on DUI litigation, Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top