On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:13:40 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 12:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:20:03 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:



"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote in message
...


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:47:39 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/12/2012 3:41 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/12/2012 10:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:31 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

There are zero or one correct religions. That fact is
indisputable.


I disagree totally .

Then mount a substantive counter-argument.

If one God exists, that makes it even more likely that there are
multiple Gods.

I didn't say gods, I said religions.

One God could inspire many religions.

Indeed. In fact...the Norse gods for example have comminality with the
Greek ones and so forth.

Its not at all impossible for a single God to show himself to different
cultures in different ways, ways that have some commonality with the
culture in question.

Or a bunch of god(s) divided up the human race via dice, foot races or
some such and are huckstering

Heck, it could be a completion to see who can get the most worshipers.

Which come to think of it would do a lot to explain some tenets in
Christianity.

Such as the 1st Commandment.



"Thou shall have no other Gods before me," means to not pray to the rain
god, wind god, sun god, and so on. There are no other gods, that's all
that means.

If there are no other gods, then how can one have another before Him?

Sorry, but that commandment clearly establishes and acknowledges the
existence of gods other than God.
For if there were no other gods, then this commandment would be moot and
irrational.

Are you suggesting God is irrational?


Excellent !! Bravo!!


Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?

Instead when people discuss the constitution they ignore what is written
and tell us all kinds of things that should be filling up the white
space on the page.


I ask questions like How can the "United States" include the States and
the People when in Amendment 10 it clearly defines the States and The
people as having the powers NOT delegated to the United States. That
absolutely separates the three.


So when reading ARTICLE I Section 8 and it says "United States" why is
it suddenly "interpreted" as including the People and the States and so
Federal Welfare can go to the States and the People?

Article I, Section 8:

"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..."

As for what constitutes the "general Welfare," Hamilton's view
prevailed. This was codified most recently in Helvering v. Davis (USSC
- 1937), by which Congress has almost unlimited power to spend tax
money as long as it is generally applicable to all states or all the
people. In 1987, Rehnquist (conservative) re-confirmed it in the case
of South Dakota v. Dole.

Your interpretation that the 10th "separates" the federal government,
the states, and the people would be an astonishment to the Founders.
Read Madison. All of the founders agreed that we have a mixed system
of federalism and nationalism.

As for states' rights, the 14th Amendment basically shot it all to
hell:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."

And it wasn't sudden. The First wasn't incorporated until the 1900s.
The Second wasn't incorporated until two years ago. If you're a
states' rights guy, then the states would have final authority in
deciding if you can have a gun -- like Chicago did until the McDonald
v. Chicago case (2010).

You really have a weird, unstudied take on the Constitution, Scotty.

--
Ed Huntress