Dale Carnegie...I can’t decide if this is more Nietzsche or Machiavelli.
I’m going with Nietzsche.
Dale Carnegie...I can’t decide if this is more Nietzsche or Machiavelli.
I’m going with Nietzsche.
I can’t decide if this is more Nietzsche or Machiavelli.
The two position during the ratification debates were that rights didn’t need to be listed since the only powers of the federal government were enumerated. The other side said that some crucial rights needed to be listed as an extra check on the government. That’s why the bill of right followed soon after. So just because a right is not listed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist since they are self evident and “God given.”And where is that right listed? Pursuit of happiness comes with the caveat emptor if not interfering with the same pursuit of others.
That was nearly 250 years ago. Self evident (obvious) is hard for most to comprehend anymore and any written right or law can be amended by popular vote. Smoking isn't very popular anymore and is considered a harmful substance. A "right" to smoke in the majority of today's population would go over as well as the right to cut off your own hand.The two position during the ratification debates were that rights didn’t need to be listed since the only powers of the federal government were enumerated. The other side said that some crucial rights needed to be listed as an extra check on the government. That’s why the bill of right followed soon after. So just because a right is not listed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist since they are self evident and “God given.”
As an historical observation I, and perhaps some other “older” members, remember that 25 years ago the same concerns regarding future tobacco availability and government regulations were passionate topics on the old alt.smokerspipes newsgroup.
I take your point that they stopped following the constitution almost immediately and it won’t prevent them from doing whatever it is that they want to do.That was nearly 250 years ago. Self evident (obvious) is hard for most to comprehend anymore and any written right or law can be amended by popular vote. Smoking isn't very popular anymore and is considered a harmful substance. A "right" to smoke in the majority of today's population would go over as well as the right to cut off your own hand.
Are they not?I take your point that they stopped following the constitution almost immediately and it won’t prevent them from doing whatever it is that they want to do.
The two position during the ratification debates were that rights didn’t need to be listed since the only powers of the federal government were enumerated. The other side said that some crucial rights needed to be listed as an extra check on the government. That’s why the bill of right followed soon after. So just because a right is not listed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist since they are self evident and “God given.”
Agreed about the articles of confederation. I was going to list the enumerated powers but I won’t clutter up the thread.True, these disagreements were there from the start...which is why the Constitutional language defining the limits of federal powers is rather vague or overly broad in some places.
It had to be amended 10 times right off the bat, which could be argued is not really a good sign. And as I commented earlier, the 9th and 10th amendments are probably the most important, but they are also the most ignored.
We probably would have been better off sticking with the original articles of confederation.
Thats why after 25 years in the U.S I am going back to the U.K to live in post-Brexit Britain
Just to cheer everyone up here is the German view of Brexit
It sounds like they don’t expect any availability problems at all. They had excess production capacity, and they’re closing the Lane facility to consolidate production expenses.Will this also affect Peter Stokkebye and Captain Black availability?