Yes, you will need them in California, formally the home of freedom and self expression. That state has come a long way from the fun loving party place depicted in so many beach movies, and now we get
What started as a battle over fireworks shows led to a sweeping legal victory Friday for environmentalists that could stymie a wide range of events needing city permits, from the Rock ’n’ Roll Marathon to birthday parties held at parks.
“According to the strictest interpretation of this, jumpy-jumps and everything else would be subject to environmental review if this ruling stands,†said lawyer Robert Howard, who represented the La Jolla Community Fireworks Foundation in the case. “It’s a breathtaking ruling.â€
Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn said La Jolla’s annual Fourth of July fireworks show requires evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
This would also impact other gatherings, and could require groups who want to rent parks to get said evaluation, which isn’t a full environmental impact statement, but, is still costly and time consuming.
Obviously, the enviroweenies are thrilled, and are happy that they are ruining people’s fun. It’s not really about the environment, but, about controlling other people’s lives and forcing their fascist agenda on the nation/world.
OK, I am going to have keep this very short and polite as this really infuriates me. Otherwise I know you will take me to the woodshed, Teach. So with the greatest refain:
This is a perfect example of the environazi movement gone wild and why it is so detrimental to our economy. This ruling has the potential to kill off millions of dollars generated by sales at such fireworks events. These environazis probably have never held a real job like one of the best examples of the worst, obama. This makes me me so pissed off and I am more determined than ever to fight these losers wherever and whenever I find them.
These moonbat morons from leftardville will not be happy until half of world’s population starves to death from their asinine policies and lawsuits that start the fires that may really be the doom of mankind, as we have known it.
More proof Leftists demand everyone else become as miserable as they are.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Just run the yellow “crime scene” tape around California. No one gets in or out until common sense is restored.
I remember years ago Limbaugh saying that the Communists had fallen but would rise again in the Environmental movement. No one understood him then. Now it’s plain that the leaders of the environmentalist wacko movement care nothing about the environment. Just look at their lifestyles. Find me one – ONE who lives in austerity the way they demand everyone else should live.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but we have lost our freedom in this country.
David,
yes, we have in so many ways and A LOT of us have noticed. many, many years ago.
patriot,
Good, lets get something done about it, elections are not working. We need to repeat our actions of 1860.
If that is what it HAS TO TAKE then I am already there and ready to go. No exception.
Could not agree more.
Well, I guess david is talking about either seceding (which is contrary to the Constitution) or rising up in some armed rebellion against the government (treason.)
The problem is, david, is that you have shown your hand before. This isn’t just about your freedom. You wish to return to an era where men, women and children were slaves. You wish to return to an era where the color of ones skin determines the levels of their rights. You wish to return to an era when we spoke of “all men being created equal,” but not practicing that ideal.
You want to back to a time when more men were killed than in World War I, World War II and Viet Nam combined.
Why?
So you can feel superior over someone else?
Don’t think so.
I wouldn’t mind turning our government back to the mid-1800’s. Heck, early 1900’s. At least before the EPA and the government-nanny state was created.
Our founding fathers were the greatest ever. They knew that all governments, in the end, turn on their people. They tried creating a self-destructing government where its arms and tentacles are replaced every few years.
But those in power found ways around that and made government a career. A life. A life that they grew in to power, wealth, and control. It is time for term-limits now more than ever.
However, I do believe in secession. The Fed is only at power due to the willingness of the states. If the states no longer agree to be bound by that Fed, then we should be free to dissolve that government control and create another.
This coming election cycle is the key. If we can’t toss out the communists, socialists, tyrants from the legislative and judicial offices, then our country is not worth saving any more.
But those in power found ways around that and made government a career. A life. A life that they grew in to power, wealth, and control. It is time for term-limits now more than ever.
No Cap’n, we did that. We the people did that. We the people who saw the sacrifice that men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others endured and we all said “no thanks. We don’t want to spend time away from our families. We don’t want to spend time away from our businesses. We don’t want to represent the people around us. We only want to take care of us.”
If the states no longer agree to be bound by that Fed, then we should be free to dissolve that government control and create another.
Except for the fact that the Constitution says otherwise. The problem is Cap’n, where do you go if you secede? If you make your own little country out of the land that is now Kentucky, what makes you or anyone think that it will be different? What makes you think that the same people that have helped institute the “nanny state” won’t be in the new country?
The “war” is a war of ideas, not a war of land and governments. It is a war against “whose ideas make the most sense to people.”
I don’t want to go back to the 1860’s. I don’t want to go back to the time of slavery. I don’t want to go back to when we looked at people of a different race as “inferior.” I don’t want to go back to when most of the population could not read. I don’t want to go back to the time when a 12 – 16 hour work day was the norm. I don’t want to go back to the time when women were chattel.
In some ways, the America of the 1860’s was further away from the dreams of the founding fathers than we are today. In other ways, we are further away than the 1860’s.
The question is “how do we keep the ideal alive and how do we keep working toward that ideal?”
I may not have all the answers, but I am not willing, at this time, to say that the answer is another bloody civil war where 245 of the men involved were causalities. I am not willing to say that the best thing to do is act like a petulant child and walk away when things go wrong. That is not the America in which I believe.
Just because some say we’d like to “go back when” does not mean we also re-absorb those shallow and vindictive ideologies of those days as well. Freedom of all men was alive and well back then too. it was just the corruption of the law that allowed slavery, much like what is happening nowadays that is allowing tyranny from the bench.
Quote:
In some ways, the America of the 1860′s was further away from the dreams of the founding fathers than we are today.
Seriously? We have far far far fewer individual rights than then. We have a far far far far larger nanny-state whose control in to our very lives and actions is, I believe, far beyond our founders comprehension.
We now have the government seizing internet domains over claims. We have homes and properties seized by gov’t for sheer profit motive. We have gov’t preventing access to the nation’s natural resources. We have gov’t fining people for pruning trees. We have gov’t suing homeschooling parents.
You may think of one state. But, I envision multiple states pulling out of the Fed agreement and creating their own (America Restored Fed) or, just being their own state beholden to no one else. They are free, as even now, to make agreements with other states.
Seriously? We have far far far fewer individual rights than then.
No, we don’t. We have more rights than we did then. What we have is more intrusion onto those rights, but that is not the same thing as having rights.
I too am concerned about the statutes and ordinances you cite, but there are ways of changing them. There are legal ways within the law to address them without breaking other laws or the Constitution.
You see Cap’n, I think that slavery of a person is much worse than a fine for topping trees. I think that not allowing a man to vote because of the color of his skin or because of same bogus “test” is much worse than regulations on rabbits. I think that denying women the right to vote is more important than access to a natural resource that will be killed by people who don’t care about it. I think that equal access to public education and buildings is much more important than other regulations. I think that all people having the right to own property is pretty damned important.
But that is the time and level you and david wants to go back to. I know that david wants to go back there because he hates blacks. I don’t want to go back there because of the basic rights that were denied of people back then.
I agree that regulations are a pain and need to be trimmed back and eliminated. But not at the expense of the United States. Not at the expense of the elimination of rights of people.
Tell me Cap’n, if you go and make this new “America Restored Fed,” how are you going to govern it? How are you going to say “you can’t do this” without “infringing” on someone’s perceived rights? How are you going to protect a person from the 1860’s rights of water management?
The fact of the matter is that if you want to go back there, you are going to have to do the same thing that you and I are against now. The only difference is the level of intrusion.
We can stop that level of intrusion if we so desire.
Remember, we are a nation of laws, not men.
Hello Gitarcarver,
First, please do not lump me in with David. He has made his position clear on who he thinks should be allowed to vote. I too have made my position clear on this when I said that even before 1860, all men were free. It was corruption and corrupt judges that instituted slavery. It was not the Constitution.
I still have a hard time understanding how you can see us having MORE rights now than before the government started intruding upon said rights?
The Water Rights you spoke of is a good example but, there again an argument could be made that the government intruded upon the owner of the water and forced a socialistic policy of sharing. I’m just sayin. Now, I don’t have a problem with the whole idea of the government “managing for our use” the free-flowing waters. I do not think though that they should have the right to completely take our resources out of our hands.
The new “America Restored” fed? It will run much like the original congress’ did, with much less power, much less overriding authority in to personal lives and much more accountability.
Is this a pipe dream? Sure is. But, might as well dream of Utopia.
gc,
The one clear statement that I have made is that you have a screw loose. Other than that, you have no idea what I believe as you are the one who has put those thoughts and words on the page according to my resistance to the intrusion of the government into our lives. My thoughts on voting are that people should be able to read, you are the one who stereotyped this to feeling that blacks can’t read. I never said that and still think that the intrusion into our lives with the CRA was not warranted and was an invasion of our freedoms.
As to the return to the government of the 1860’s, what does that have to do with a return to slavery? That is nuts to even associate the two concepts. Lincoln fundamentally changed our country and this was compounded with Wilson, FDR and LBJ. Now with Obama, the circuit is just about completed. By the way, FDR bragged that he had eliminated just about every freedom we have except the freedom of religion. Now following precedent, you will search the Internet and misinterpret what I have said and what the Internet has to say. As I have indicated before read some books and get some background on the subject. You currently do not live in a free society and if we succeed we will be free of the northern influence that has resulted in that situation.
Now try your best to address the issue and not me, which you are wrong about. For that matter, how do you even know my race?
even before 1860, all men were free.
I am missing your point here. Clearly before 1860, all men were not free.
It was corruption and corrupt judges that instituted slavery. It was not the Constitution.
I am not sure where you are going with this either. The original Constitution indirectly recognizes the institution of slavery. A good number of the founding father had slaves. Are you implying that they were corrupt?
I still have a hard time understanding how you can see us having MORE rights now than before the government started intruding upon said rights?
I think we might be mixing semantics here. Man has rights no matter whether the government recognizes those rights or not.
The point I am trying to make is that when someone says they want to go back to the “XXXX” year, we should look at the rights the government recognized at that time. Since 1860, the following Constitutional Amendments have been made – abolition of slavery, the right to vote without regard to race or “previous condition of servitude,” right to vote without regard to sex, representation of the citizens of the District of Columbia, right to vote without a poll tax, and the right of 18 year olds to vote.
Do I think or believe that a fine for topping a tree is equal to any of those enumerated rights?
No chance.
What we have seen since 1860 is the enumeration of more rights and at the same time, more attacks on the rights that exist. Therefore, by definition, we have more government recognized rights than we did in 1860. The exercise of those rights is often under attack, but that does not mean we have fewer rights.
The key is to be forever vigilant in maintaining and protecting those rights. You mentioned the Kelo decision and many states responded with legislation that now prevents the use of eminent domain simply for the increase in tax revenues.
That is what has to be done. We have to keep pounding away on representatives. Running away in the form of seceding will not solve the issue as the form of government we have is better than any other form. You would have to recreate the same government in your utopia and then address the same issues as we are facing today.
My thoughts on voting are that people should be able to read, you are the one who stereotyped this to feeling that blacks can’t read.
Yet you also believe that people should have separate facilities. Why would that be, david? The CRA addressed the very inequities that you support and believe in.
an invasion of our freedoms.
Right. Treating people equally is an invasion of your freedom. Tell me david, if you want to be a racist and not treat people equally (as you clearly do not) how is that not an intrusion on the rights of the people you wish to treat differently? If the government is established to protect the rights of its citizens, why should the government allow you to trample the rights of others?
As to the return to the government of the 1860′s, what does that have to do with a return to slavery?
No one – not even you – can be that stupid.
Lincoln fundamentally changed our country
Yes he did. He preserved the Union when people of your ilk wanted to dissolve it.
As I have indicated before read some books and get some background on the subject.
The problem is, david, that for every reference you mention, you never back it up with a citation. You think that we should accept your word for everything and when you get caught, you try and say that you were misinterpreted or that the other person is a liar. You lack credibility, david.
You currently do not live in a free society and if we succeed we will be free of the northern influence that has resulted in that situation.
A free society as defined by whom, david? You? Please forgive me for not wanting to live in a society where you treat people differently due to the color of their skin. Please forgive me for not wanting to live in a society where “freedoms” do not have “responsibilities,” as you believe.
Now try your best to address the issue and not me, which you are wrong about.
I am waiting for you to explain how I am wrong, david. I have addressed the issues you have raised and have always done so in the past. Your responses have always been to made an ad hominem attack, or to run away.
For that matter, how do you even know my race?
Your race doesn’t matter dave. Not one iota. Not one bit. It is your desired oppression of other people that is the issue.
Thanks gc you provided all the information one needs to show you to be some kind of nut. As to any racist ideology, that is all from your perception and nothing that has come from me. According to you, the federal government is necessary to be the moral dictator of our country and people can not make individual decisions. To believe different does not make one racist, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a member of the KKK or any of the other rediculous acertions that your have spouted. By the way, how old are you, I am guessing about 16 to 18?
Quote GC:
What we have seen since 1860 is the enumeration of more rights and at the same time, more attacks on the rights that exist.
See, I guess that is where we differ. I believe, that we are born with every single right one can imagine. It is our laws and governments that limit rights.
The governments and laws CAN NOT give us rights.
And, because one says that they would like to go back to the 19th century, does not mean they also want to live exactly like it was back then. We do not want outside toilet holes, malaria, smallpox, horse-only transportation, and… slavery. What one means, especially in my case and in most Tea Party members cases, is that we want to go back to when the government was much smaller and had far less control over our individual lives.
We are human and thus we (for the most part) remember history. No, we would not revoke all the so-called “freedom-giving” laws. Actually, for us, I guess you’d might call us libertarian-types, see that there does not need to be a law to grant us freedom.
As for the Constitution, no there was no acknowledgment of slavery or an approval of it. Slavery was around. Yes. It was the “culture”. However, there was MASSIVE moves to get rid of slavery for hundreds of years. And, we are still working to resolve it all around the world.
Hey, here’s a question for all…. Why are the Dems so HOT over the Voting Rights Act and imposing Fed restrictions on states and areas even to this day. This was to prevent racial discrimination right? But, yet they are opposed to voter-id bills which prove which race and nationality you are? And, if you have a voter card, then shouldn’t they also be ok with a photo ID alongside it as well?
Here’s an idea… a photo attached to the voter registration card. Problem solved.
cf,
agree
to show you to be some kind of nut.
I guess that would be “nut” as defined by you? Gee, I am not worried about your characterization at all.
nothing that has come from me.
Nothing except for your own writings and words.
According to you, the federal government is necessary to be the moral dictator of our country and people can not make individual decisions.
Absolutely not. Nor have I ever said so.
To believe different does not make one racist, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a member of the KKK or any of the other rediculous acertions that your have spouted.
No, but does not change the fact that you are.
By the way, how old are you, I am guessing about 16 to 18?
Not even close, david. Not even close.
See, I guess that is where we differ. I believe, that we are born with every single right one can imagine.
No, we do not differ. Read my complete statement again. You will see this: Man has rights no matter whether the government recognizes those rights or not.
It is our laws and governments that limit rights.
It is also laws and governments that protect those rights. The “brilliant men” you called the Founding Fathers believed just that. They believed that governments were instituted to protect the rights of men.
And, because one says that they would like to go back to the 19th century, does not mean they also want to live exactly like it was back then.
The problem with this statement is that it begs the question “why pick a specific time to wish to return to as rights exist no matter what time period one examines?” Given that the rights of man are constant no matter what time period, why the desire to return to a specific period in time?
As for the Constitution, no there was no acknowledgment of slavery or an approval of it.
Oh dear.
Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution: What does the phrase “Importation of such people” mean? Who specifically is that referring to?
Article 1, Secion 1 of the Constitution: ……which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) Specifically, who is being referenced by the phrase “three fifths of all other Persons?”
Article 4, Section 2: (No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) To whom does the phrase “held in Service or Labour” refer? HINT: That phrase was voided by the 13th Amendment which made slavery illegal.
Slavery is not only mentioned in the original Constitution, it is codified.
Oops. Sorry. There should have been a closed of the bold tag at the end of “Man has rights no matter whether the government recognizes those rights or not. ”
My bad.
By the way david, let’s examine this statement:
My thoughts on voting are that people should be able to read….
There are but two possibilities as to the right to vote: 1) the right to vote is a natural right or 2) the right to vote is a right bestowed upon citizens by a social agreement called a “government.”
If you believe in the first possibility, then by arguing for a “reading test” to determine whether a person can vote or not, you have limited the right of a person to vote. That would be against your belief that people’s rights should not be infringed upon.
If you believe in the second possibility, clearly voting is an exercise in freedom. Being that you have constantly stated that you are against restrictions of freedoms, why is it that you are for restricting the freedom of people to vote?
It actuality, it doesn’t matter which one you say you believe or use to back up your (lack of) thinking.
Both choices expose the hypocrisy in your position.
You aren’t for freedom or rights, david. If that were the case, you would be for freedom and rights of all people.
As it is, you are only for what you believe is freedom and what you believe is a right for you.
Hey GC.
Yes, we are born, naturally, with rights that must be protected and can only be limited. But yet, did you not state that you felt we have more right now than we did in our founding father’s age due to laws “protecting” rights?
While there are laws that seek to protect infringing of rights by other’s intentions to impose their own rights, neither law gives rights. no law can abridge our rights and none can give us rights.
I think of it like this. We are basically an anarchy but agree to some level of government control to help protect everyone’s rights to be anarchic. Government should be there to balance the scales of rights I guess.
I only picked a generic time frame, as I said, a time when the government was not as large as it is now, was not infringing as it is now, nor as tyrannical as it is now. Property rights were one of the founding pillars of our Constitution. We no longer have property rights. No one owns their property. We lease it from the government. Much of stuff in our homes is also leased (depending on the state’s property tax laws).
OK. I am no scholar nor am I fully knowledgeable about the Constitution, but here is what I know and understand.
Article 1, Section 9 details the movements of people across state lines. That Section also details “migration”. After 1808, Congress took authority over migration.
Article 1, Section 2 details how many representatives can be chosen from a counted populace. What is glossed over is also the phrase, “including those bound to Service”. Those are not necessarily slaves. These can also those indentured servants or those bound to work based upon certain farming agreements.
In order to placate the southern states, every other person not free, not indentured, or indian, will basically be counted towards 3/5 of the formers. Meaning. while it would take 30,000 of the “free” peoples to have 1 representative, the “others” would have to comprise 48,000. Note also, that there were blacks that were “free”.
Slavery during this time was not widespread as races (maybe not many indians) lived together. Slavery grew after corruption and certain judges ruled certain people to be property.
Article 4, Section 2 to me only speaks of indentured servants. Section 1 speaks of those arrested and sought to do “time”.
I believe this Section 2 also speaks of “doing time” by indentured servants. This was corrupted to allow slavery. Thus a new amendment came to specifically tell people that this did not allow slavery.
Just like the way people try to change the “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom to Arms” in the Bill of Rights. Many now are trying to claim that freedom of speech means that people can’t be offended and that certain speech is not speech. Many are still trying to claim that individuals do not have the right to arms. Yet that is what these rights confirm: We have rights to offend, to be offended, and to bear arms.
I appreciate this cordial discussion in that we can figure each other out.
Yes, we are born, naturally, with rights that must be protected and can only be limited. But yet, did you not state that you felt we have more right now than we did in our founding father’s age due to laws “protecting†rights?
Please remember the context of the conversation. At that point in time, david had said that he wanted to return to 1860 when we had more freedoms and more rights. You agreed with him.
We both now understand that we agree that man, by nature or God, has rights that are unchangeable. My point was and still is that when someone says “I want to go back in time to this year because the laws gave us more freedom or allowed us to exercise our rights more than now,” we have to take into account what laws limiting rights were in place at that time. You cannot simply say “that was a better time for rights and freedom” without examining what rights and freedoms were allowed or being exercised.
That is why I said that not being able to top a tree is bad, but it is not as bad as slavery. Both used laws to restrict rights. If you want to go back in time when tree topping was not restricted, then you have to look at the age and the time to which you wish to return. You have to look at what “rights restricting” laws were in place.
To simply turn a blind eye to what was restricted in that age is disingenuous.
Article 1, Section 9 details the movements of people across state lines. That Section also details “migrationâ€. After 1808, Congress took authority over migration.
You are missing the “importation of persons.” In 1787, movement of free people was recognized. There was no tariff or taxes on a free person moving from state to state. So what is the tax that the article refers to? It is a sales tax on slaves.
Article 1, Section 2 details how many representatives can be chosen from a counted populace. What is glossed over is also the phrase, “including those bound to Serviceâ€. Those are not necessarily slaves. These can also those indentured servants or those bound to work based upon certain farming agreements.
Read it again. The people that are “included those bound in service” were indeed indentured servants and workers. They were counted as a “whole” person. It is the “other persons” that are counted as 3/5’s of a person. The Federalist Papers and the writings of the day are clear that the “other persons” and the 3/5’s compromise” were talking about slaves. If it were not the case, then why was this section made moot by the 13th Amendment? The Amendment that outlawed slavery?
Article 4, Section 2 to me only speaks of indentured servants. Section 1 speaks of those arrested and sought to do “timeâ€.
Indentured servants were not captured and returned to their “owners” because the indentured servant was not “owned.” The indentured servant had agreed to work for a certain period of time to pay off a debt. The servant was, at any time, eligible to pay off that day and relieve their service. Failing to do so was a civil matter – not criminal. Indentured servants were not captured and returned anywhere at any time.
Even if one were to take your meaning to be true, and it is not, why was the following made moot by the 13th Amendment?
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)
Why is that passage made moot by the Amendment that addressed slavery unless that passage referred to slavery?
Slavery during this time was not widespread as races (maybe not many indians) lived together. Slavery grew after corruption and certain judges ruled certain people to be property.
I presume that you are referring to the Dred Scott case. If you want to hang your hat on that, that is fine, but Scott was settled in 1857 – some 70 years after the ratification of the Constitution. If slavery’s genesis was from corrupt judges, what decision was made in or prior to 1787 that allowed slavery? What decision other then Scott ruled that people were “property” prior to that case?
I appreciate this cordial discussion in that we can figure each other out.
Agreed. We are not as far apart as you might think. I believe we were defining “rights” and the exercise of those rights to mean two different things and that led to the confusion.
Hey GC,
OK, I can understand your point of view. You see the “going back to a point in time” to mean that they would want to return to a set of rules and laws that were in place up to that time.
Maybe I am different but I envision a lifestyle when I think of that “time”. I guess I am naive. But I don’t want to “go back” but to just shrink the government and regulations to be like it was during that “time”. It would be like starting over with what we know now.
Like I said, I am a lay person with regards to the Constitution and I may be naive, but I still see it talking about indentured servitude. Why call it Service, or Labor? And, would a person purchased or born in to slavery have his work “due” to that person’s owner?
If they are trying to use glossy language instead of saying slavery, then you could be right. But….. I still see my take.
Are you saying that escaping slaves was a criminal matter? But wasn’t there a time when failing to pay off one’s debt a criminal matter? Debtor’s prison? And wasn’t there a law then passed to do away with criminalizing the failure to pay debt?
I see the 13th Amendment as refining and finally saying “ok, you pushed it too far so we are going to do away with it all. The 13th Amendment also makes note of indentured servitude. Why make note of that if it wasn’t part of the Art4:Sec2?
Many Amendments closed loopholes. For example the 14th and 15th Amendments were meant to close loopholes that the former Confederate states used to maintain control over former slaves. Thus, I believe, that just because an Amendment makes mention of a subject, does not mean that the clause it supercedes authorized that subject.
That’s my take at least. I can see yours as well.
You see the “going back to a point in time†to mean that they would want to return to a set of rules and laws that were in place up to that time.
No, I am saying that you can’t or shouldn’t say “I want to go back to this time” without realizing the totality of what that means.
People always long for times past. If you remember the show “Happy Days,” it was full of frolicking kids, great music, etc. But for the most part, the show ignored the Korean War, Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement beginning, the first hydrogen bomb, the scare from Sputnik, etc.
The same is true when we look back at any time. I prefer to look at history with a clear view, rather than with rose color glasses.
If they are trying to use glossy language instead of saying slavery, then you could be right.
All I can suggest is that you read more of the Federalist Papers and the papers of the Founding Fathers.
Are you saying that escaping slaves was a criminal matter?
Yes. In the southern states it was. That is why the section references states that have such laws. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act made it a crime to assist a runaway slave.
ut wasn’t there a time when failing to pay off one’s debt a criminal matter? Debtor’s prison? And wasn’t there a law then passed to do away with criminalizing the failure to pay debt?
Yes and yes. We call that law the “Constitution.”
The 13th Amendment also makes note of indentured servitude.
No, it doesn’t Cap’n. It makes note of “involuntary servitude.” Not “indentured servitude.” The two are radically different.
Thus, I believe, that just because an Amendment makes mention of a subject, does not mean that the clause it supercedes authorized that subject.
So you still believe in Prohibition? ;)
No, it doesn’t Cap’n. It makes note of “involuntary servitude.” Not “indentured servitude.”
DOI !!! Or as Teach likes to say, DERP!
I read that wrong. I guess my “want” made my brain see what it wanted.
I stand corrected and have learned something. But, I still like my rosey-glasses. The world just seems prettier.
The world just seems prettier.
I agree. But I love good looking women, warts and all. :)