 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
I went to yahoo finance and looked. I can see that it could happen if
you picked just the right times to buy and sell. But why don't you look at it too and then compare big blue with the S & P 500. As I understand one would not be able to invest your privatized SS money with all the eggs in one basket. Dan |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Gunner says...
Not an issue. We are glad you are being cooperative. In fact, based on the data you supplied, we have decided to auction off your property on site, and let the buyers do the moving. Bring pontoons. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , George Willer says...
George, would you eliminate medicade too if you had your druthers? Jim Certainly... wouldn't you? Which article of the Constitution do you think it's based on? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? OK, please advise gunner that all his wife's medical care and all of her medications are being cut off. That way I can keep all my cast iron that he's trying to auction off! :^) Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
You really want more than just the life expectancy at age 65. One of
the factors that help Social Security is the number of people that pay in and then die before they reach 65. ie pay for retirement and never get anything. So the number that reach somewhere around 18 and enter the work force and die before 65 is another number you want. Extreme example would be persons at age 18 with a life expectancy of 65. So about half of them pay into the system and die without drawing any benefits. Now change that to a life expectancy of 70. Lots more draw benefits. Over 500 draw benefits for five years. And Bush does not want to go back to 1929 with no government retirement system. He wants to go to a system that has some real assets. Not the present system that has a imaginary trust fund. I recently picked up and read " Hard Times " edited by Studs Terkel. I recommend it if you can find a copy. Dan |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , George Willer says...
What!!! Protecting our shores is one of the most important Constitutional duties. Read the document! Clue... check the preamble first. No it isn't. Invading foreign countries is much more important. Check with your president before making rash statements. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim,
If you really want to argue, read the Constitution first! We can discuss Iraq on another thread where you will also be proved to be wrong. Your rash comment will be forgiven after you have read and understand the Constitution. Hint... after you read the preamble, move on to section 8. George Willer "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , George Willer says... What!!! Protecting our shores is one of the most important Constitutional duties. Read the document! Clue... check the preamble first. No it isn't. Invading foreign countries is much more important. Check with your president before making rash statements. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in
m: Ed, I found a little info on this treatment and it looked promising but the phase 3 trials haven't reported yet. The last reported trial was a drug named AC2993 ( synthetic Exendin-4) and that was in 2003. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is in San Diego and I may give them a call. The results of their trial were on the ADA web site. John, If you find anything out I'd be interested in learning about it. -- Dan |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... You really want more than just the life expectancy at age 65. One of the factors that help Social Security is the number of people that pay in and then die before they reach 65. ie pay for retirement and never get anything. So the number that reach somewhere around 18 and enter the work force and die before 65 is another number you want. It's not a large percentage, and it's offset to some degree (more or less, I don't know) by survivor's benefits. Overall, the good number for use in input/output analyses is the life expectancy at 65. They use that number a lot in the insurance business, and they're playing you-bet-your-life for billions of dollars of their OWN money. It kind of clears the mind. g Extreme example would be persons at age 18 with a life expectancy of 65. So about half of them pay into the system and die without drawing any benefits. Now change that to a life expectancy of 70. Lots more draw benefits. Over 500 draw benefits for five years. If you're really curious about this, the statistics are available. Check the various kinds of data you can order from the Census Bureau. It's a lot more than you'll find online. And Bush does not want to go back to 1929 with no government retirement system. He wants to go to a system that has some real assets. Not the present system that has a imaginary trust fund. Good luck. I recently picked up and read " Hard Times " edited by Studs Terkel. I recommend it if you can find a copy. I like ol' Studs. It's like reading something from a trade-unionist/socialist from the 1930s (actually, that's exactly what Studs is all about), but he's a smart guy and well worth reading. I've heard the book is good. Maybe I'll get around to it. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... P.S: Whuffo you nevah learnt to snip messages, Ed? (I left the entire thread above to show you why we should learn this simple task.) What was that you were talking about? Somebody snipped the content. g -- Ed Huntress |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , George Willer says...
Jim, If you really want to argue, read the Constitution first! Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?) and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares, in the white house, outhouse. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Willer" wrote in message
... George, would you eliminate medicade too if you had your druthers? Jim Certainly... wouldn't you? Which article of the Constitution do you think it's based on? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? Article I, Section. 8, Clause 1: "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..." Provide for the general welfare. That's the one, George. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Ed Huntress says...
Provide for the general welfare. That's the one, George. Nah, that can't be it. When they say 'general welfare,' they really mean, only items that benefit *his* general welfare. Anybody else gets some benefit, he's not gonna pay a nickel. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , George Willer says... Jim, If you really want to argue, read the Constitution first! Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?) and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares, in the white house, outhouse. Jim Now that you've made that assertion, how about educating us with some specific examples supporting what you say. Otherwise, we will be free to assume you've made that judgement without having any facts and without ever reading the Constitution. George Willer |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
George, would you eliminate medicade too if you had your druthers? Jim Certainly... wouldn't you? Which article of the Constitution do you think it's based on? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? Article I, Section. 8, Clause 1: "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..." Provide for the general welfare. That's the one, George. -- Ed Huntress Maybe with your slant it looks like one. Congress isn't really providing for general welfare... it's merely Juggling individual welfare from one group of individuals to another. It doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so. George Willer |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D Murphy" wrote in message ... "J. R. Carroll" wrote in m: Ed, I found a little info on this treatment and it looked promising but the phase 3 trials haven't reported yet. The last reported trial was a drug named AC2993 ( synthetic Exendin-4) and that was in 2003. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is in San Diego and I may give them a call. The results of their trial were on the ADA web site. John, If you find anything out I'd be interested in learning about it. Dan, Start with this. Not much metal content here so I will send you a summary privately in a week or so. ftp.machiningsolution.com/ac2993.pdf -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , George Willer says...
Maybe with your slant it looks like one. Congress isn't really providing for general welfare... it's merely Juggling individual welfare from one group of individuals to another. It doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so. Taxes take money from some people and give it to other people. That seems like a pretty good starting point - except it leads to the inescapable conclusion that you don't like to pay *any* taxes. Further that you claim that our governments (state and federal, I would guess) should not be doing that. Once again I would say you are doomed to disapointment, living in the US. To get what you want, you need to move someplace else. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Willer" wrote in message
... George, would you eliminate medicade too if you had your druthers? Jim Certainly... wouldn't you? Which article of the Constitution do you think it's based on? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? Article I, Section. 8, Clause 1: "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..." Provide for the general welfare. That's the one, George. -- Ed Huntress Maybe with your slant it looks like one. Congress isn't really providing for general welfare... it's merely Juggling individual welfare from one group of individuals to another. You could collect Medicare just as well as anyone else, George. It doesn't discriminate. And Congress, as well as a very large majority of Americans, think that the result is good for the general welfare of the country. It doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so. You tell 'em. They could probably use a few lessons about what the Constitution means. What's your take on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? -- Ed Huntress |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , George Willer says...
If you really want to argue, read the Constitution first! Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?) and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares, in the white house, outhouse. Now that you've made that assertion, how about educating us with some specific examples supporting what you say. Otherwise, we will be free to assume you've made that judgement without having any facts and without ever reading the Constitution. Well don't take my word for it George. If I were gunner, I'd quote from some left (right) wing whackO site, but I won't do that either. How about if I quote from a legal opinion, like this one he http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf To save you the trouble of opening the pdf file, I'll quote from it he (begin quote) ================================================== ================= .....despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing ... ================================================== ================== (end quote) I dunno. Sounds like the author is pretty much in favor of the conclusion, "George Bush thinks the constitution is best suited for toilet paper." He's so busy tripping over his own two feet to get back from vacation to try to bulldoze that Terry law into effect, he kinda forgot about a little thing called the US constitution. Seeing as you love that document so much George, you must be horrified to find that your own president wiping his behind with it. Read the entire decision, it's pretty interesting. It has other things in it like: ================================================== ====================== Accordingly, we must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Ms. Schiavo and her family and the recent events related to her plight which have troubled the consciences of many." ================================================== ====================== Basically the US constitution takes precedence over pandering to the religious right, GWB's hand-wringing notwithstanding. Have a sparkling day, George. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Ed Huntress says...
You tell 'em. They could probably use a few lessons about what the Constitution means. What's your take on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Uh oh. Now you went and did it, Ed.... Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hard Times is not written by Studs. But edited by him. There are
various sections. Some written by people that prospered during the depression, Others by people that suffered. I found it interesting in that I got views of the depression from all sides. Dan |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a private account in that it is in your name and your wife or
children can inherit it. But there are a limited number of choices. A bit like IRA's but more restrictive. You can not invest in Art in an IRA for example. The government always feels like they can tell you what to do with your money. For example income tax is due by the year, but the government says you must pay in installments. Dan |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Taxes take money from some people and give it to other people. That seems like a pretty good starting point - except it leads to the inescapable conclusion that you don't like to pay *any* taxes. Further that you claim that our governments (state and federal, I would guess) should not be doing that. Once again I would say you are doomed to disapointment, living in the US. To get what you want, you need to move someplace else. Jim Jim, You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I've already given you credit for enough intelligence to sort things out. I really hate to be mistaken. Of course we need taxes for essential services. Military, judiciary, law enforcement, transportation system, to name a few. What we don't need is the socialist programs liberals are so fond of. George Willer |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
You tell 'em. They could probably use a few lessons about what the
Constitution means. What's your take on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? -- Ed Huntress To me, it spells out the God given right for all men to be treated equally. That's a good thing. That some men have become more equal than others is NOT a good thing. Now tell me your take on the second. George Willer |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in message
m... Ed, I found a little info on this treatment and it looked promising but the phase 3 trials haven't reported yet. The last reported trial was a drug named AC2993 ( synthetic Exendin-4) and that was in 2003. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is in San Diego and I may give them a call. The results of their trial were on the ADA web site. John, If you find anything out I'd be interested in learning about it. Dan, Start with this. Not much metal content here so I will send you a summary privately in a week or so. ftp.machiningsolution.com/ac2993.pdf Yup, that's a type 2 treatment. Very interesting for type 2s. There is a lot of research going on all the time; you just have to sort out which of the developments has legs. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "J. R. Carroll" wrote in message m... Ed, I found a little info on this treatment and it looked promising but the phase 3 trials haven't reported yet. The last reported trial was a drug named AC2993 ( synthetic Exendin-4) and that was in 2003. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is in San Diego and I may give them a call. The results of their trial were on the ADA web site. John, If you find anything out I'd be interested in learning about it. Dan, Start with this. Not much metal content here so I will send you a summary privately in a week or so. ftp.machiningsolution.com/ac2993.pdf Yup, that's a type 2 treatment. Very interesting for type 2s. There is a lot of research going on all the time; you just have to sort out which of the developments has legs. Ed, They are about half way through regulatory review. Given that, you probably know better than I when this will be on the market but they seem to think 18 months at least. The financial risk has also now been spread among two other drug makers. Is that common? As you may know ( or not), Amylin does make have a new Type I product out - Symlin - and that may well be of some interest to you if insulin alone isn't completely controlling the disease. It has only been out for a couple of weeks now. See: http://www.amylin.com/pipeline/symlin.cfm At any rate, the genesis of many new drugs and treatments can be interesting. Collecting and analyzing natures toxins has become a big business. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Willer" wrote in message
... You can try to cloud the issue with bull****, but the fact remains... "Bull****"? This, from a guy who just told us he had the math all figured out in third grade, that the birthrate was going down, even though it actually went up for roughly 20 years after he was born? George, you're going to have a problem now passing yourself off as the clear voice of reason. g the ratio of those paying in to the system relative to those receiving payment is and will continue in the same direction... the direction that is fatal to the system. It will go in the same direction for quite a while, assuming that current trends can be projected (a specious assumption, but we'll go along) but it is hardly fatal to the system. I don't think you know the numbers well enough to make the statements you're making, George. I don't think you know how wide the range of projections is, nor what it would take, right now, to get SS over the coming hump. So, as I said, believe what you want. You will anyway. As for me, I believe that the real experts at this business, the actuaries, know enough to realize it's all political b.s. Some of them have said so. So have a number of the world's top economists. I'd rather keep listening to the facts. Enjoy yourself. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in news:Qgm4e.9313
: Dan, Start with this. Not much metal content here so I will send you a summary privately in a week or so. Thanks John. Very encouraging preliminary results. -- Dan |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Willer" wrote in message
... You tell 'em. They could probably use a few lessons about what the Constitution means. What's your take on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? -- Ed Huntress To me, it spells out the God given right for all men to be treated equally. That's a good thing. Well, then you're opposed to state's rights, then. That's one of the more curious flip-flops that conservatives have gone through over the past 20 years or so. I guess they're goring different oxen these days. That's the context in which the 14th becomes an issue, when a citizen of a state sues the state because his rights are being violated. The effect has been to impose most of the BOR upon the states, making the states subject to federal law on a wide variety of rights-related issues. That some men have become more equal than others is NOT a good thing. Yeah, when the income differential between corporate executives and their workers hit a factor of 400, I came over to your side on that issue, too. Now tell me your take on the second. It means that Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of individuals to own guns, subject to the same limitation that all of the BOR is subject to: compelling state interest (which is to say, national interest, because the 2nd doesn't apply to the states) to limit it. For the record, I don't think that the federal "assault weapons" bills meet the standard of compelling state interest. They're cases of overreaching. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in message
m... Ed, They are about half way through regulatory review. Given that, you probably know better than I when this will be on the market but they seem to think 18 months at least. Again, I don't follow type 2 treatments at all. There's too much to it. Type 2 actually is more complicated, from a medical standpoint. Type 1 is relatively simple: we ain't got no insulin production, nohow. g The financial risk has also now been spread among two other drug makers. Is that common? I don't really know the answer to that. Small drug companies form joint ventures and other tie-ins when they have a patent on something they aren't big enough to develop or market. Other than that, I don't know that end of drug-industry finances. The thing that looms large in my work is the incredible cost of conducting pre-release and post-market trials. That's where most of the millions go. Marketing is second to that. As you may know ( or not), Amylin does make have a new Type I product out - Symlin - and that may well be of some interest to you if insulin alone isn't completely controlling the disease. It has only been out for a couple of weeks now. See: http://www.amylin.com/pipeline/symlin.cfm Yes, I know about Symlin. It will be very useful to those type 1s who have certain types of control problems. At any rate, the genesis of many new drugs and treatments can be interesting. Collecting and analyzing natures toxins has become a big business. Yeah, it's interesting. I could see getting involved in the science of it, but it wouldn't have been my first choice if I had chosen to go into scientific research. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Apr 2005 11:55:06 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Not an issue. We are glad you are being cooperative. In fact, based on the data you supplied, we have decided to auction off your property on site, and let the buyers do the moving. Bring pontoons. Jim We figured a lot of PSP would be appropriate. We will simply bulldoze whatever structure is in the way of placement. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Apr 2005 11:56:43 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , George Willer says... George, would you eliminate medicade too if you had your druthers? Jim Certainly... wouldn't you? Which article of the Constitution do you think it's based on? Do you still believe in Santa Claus? OK, please advise gunner that all his wife's medical care and all of her medications are being cut off. That way I can keep all my cast iron that he's trying to auction off! :^) Jim Its not being cut off. Its being paid for by your assets. Something you approve of, it appears. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Apr 2005 16:59:32 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , George Willer says... Jim, If you really want to argue, read the Constitution first! Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?) and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares, in the white house, outhouse. Jim That you can make that claim, indicates that you have never read the Constitution. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:16:26 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote: "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , George Willer says... Jim, If you really want to argue, read the Constitution first! Why bother, our president hasn't read it (can he really *read*?) and if he has, he's decided that the best use for it under his adminstration is for it to be hanging, torn up in tidy squares, in the white house, outhouse. Jim Now that you've made that assertion, how about educating us with some specific examples supporting what you say. Otherwise, we will be free to assume you've made that judgement without having any facts and without ever reading the Constitution. George Willer Bravo! Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:00:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: o pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Which part? General welfare? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Apr 2005 19:07:33 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , George Willer says... Maybe with your slant it looks like one. Congress isn't really providing for general welfare... it's merely Juggling individual welfare from one group of individuals to another. It doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so. Taxes take money from some people and give it to other people. That seems like a pretty good starting point - except it leads to the inescapable conclusion that you don't like to pay *any* taxes. Further that you claim that our governments (state and federal, I would guess) should not be doing that. Once again I would say you are doomed to disapointment, living in the US. To get what you want, you need to move someplace else. Jim Gee Jim...its always the conservatives that when unable to debate, trot out the Love it or Leave it line. Right? When did you become a Conservative? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:00:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: o pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Which part? General welfare? All of it. That's Congress's authority, as set forth in the Constitution. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Apr 2005 19:40:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: ================================================= ================== ....despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing ... You pick some county judge as the final arbiter of the state of the US? Oh boy Jim.....are we gonna have fun with this.....since you think this actually is the end all and be all..... Slow learner arnt you? Justice Catron, Justice Wayne, Justice Nelson, Justice Grier, Justice Daniel, and Justice Campbell concurring in separate opinions. Justice McLean and Justice Curtis dissenting in separate opinions. 1. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit, through their agent and trustee, the Federal Government. Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizen, whenever the Territory is open to settlement, both enter it with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution. 2. Congress have no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States from taking up their home there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefitand if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms. 3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. 4. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. 5. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitutionand the removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, gave him no title to freedom. Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Apr 2005 19:40:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: ================================================= ================== ....despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing ... "In contrast, the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the most restrictive interpretation (also known as “the collective rights model”) of the Second Amendment. Under “the collective rights model,” the Second Amendment never applies to individuals but merely recognizes the state’s right to arm its militia." Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bizzarro Gunner - aka "Cliff" | Metalworking | |||
| Welcome back Gunner | Metalworking | |||
| Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner - A Song | Woodworking | |||
| Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
