Columbus Business Daily

How do I cite the U. S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, etc. in a paper? I am writing a History paper, and I am required to make references in the text to the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and possibly the Federalist Papers #10 and #51. My question is, I do not know how to cite these documents, either in the text (with parentetical citations) and on my "works cited" page. This is an MLA-style paper, and I've checked a lot of MLA writing style guides and websites, but they do not specify. Could anyone help me with this?

What is the best book or source for explaining the U.S. Constitution? I would like to find a source that is not slanted either way, and that is generally accepted by scholars as being the authoritative text on the Constitution.

What is the minimum number of state legislatures necessary to ratify the U.S Constitution? I've read in my text books and on the Web that the minimum number of states necessary to ratify the U.S Constitution is is three-quarters of the country, but doing the math that comes upto 37.5 states, which doesn't make much sense. So what is it?

U.S Constitution: Articles 1-7, Amendments 1-27 (text pp. 231-251)?

What influence did English legal and political traditions have upon the Framers of the U.S. Constitution? I have a worksheet of questions I don't know the answers to. This is one of them. The question is from a book called American Government by Walter E. Volkomer (Eleventh Edition). It is visually a small text book. This question can be answered from chapter 2 of this book. I can't find the answer to it. Help!

How do you cite the U.S. Constitution in the Chicago-Turbian style? I need in-text and reference page citations. Thank you.

How would one cite the U.S. Constitution? I'm writing a research/persuasive paper on the separation of church and state, and I'm quoting the First Amendment. How would I handle an in-text citation and a works cited citation? MLA format, please.

Obama as a proponent of Cloward-Piven and Alinksy wants to radically change the Constitution.Do you want this? Obama said he wants to change the constitution, from proscriptive to prescriptive. He said ACORN would drive his agenda. ACORN's agenda (seen in the way they helped defraud taxpayers in NYC and WA DC with the pimp/ho) is to Cloward-Piven (overburden obligations til breaking point) the system to impose crisis and radical change. Obama studied the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky methodologies, and lectured on them himself. He spoke about them with regards to race, economy, banking, business, utilities, etc. and he is implementing his own tactics (which we see in bailouts and takeovers). The next step is further diminishment of individual and states' rights in the Constitution. The analysis below by a Constitutional professor shows how the Obamacare plan is really about reducing the constitution to a meaningless document while consolidating power into the executive. The Truth About the Health Care Bills – Professor Michael Connelly, Ret., Constitutional Attorney 08.24.09 Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the st Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us. Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Profesor Carrollton , Texas

The U.S Constitution situation? I've joined a forum a few months back and in their TOS (Terms Of Service) states no religious/political posts on signatures and forum topics. Now, I added a link to the U.S Constitution website on my signature and one of the moderators warns me that it should be removed? The link only displays the texts of the constitution, no pictures of presidents, or other political features.

Is the U.S. Constitution the oldest one that's still in use today? What other nations have constitutions as old as the United States' constitution that is still used and in the same text today?? OK so what IS the oldest constitution still effective????

Please identify at least five concepts in early texts/ documents which are found in U.S. constitution?

Where in the constitution does it mention separation of church and state? I have thoroughly examined the text and have found no mention of this idea. I have been told it says it in the U.S. constitution.

Translate article V of the U.S Constitution? Can you please explain to me what you would interprete Article V of the constitution as? i would prefer it if you stated it in your own words rather than use text! Thank you

For citation purposes, how does one cite the u.s. constitution in a paper for school? You know, parenthetical in-text and everything?.....

Do you think "General Welfare" in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted correctly? Why or why not? Bearing in mind the following: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -James Madison "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson

Does the AZ immigration law violate the U.S. Constitution? Here's an interview between a journalist and U.S..A.G. Holden, and this is what he had to say his reasoning regarding the law and its constitutionality. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1012872 -- Holden could have looked here and found the full text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf Please note that AZ SB 1070-2010 is 10 pages, compared to Ocare's 2,000+ pages of rapidly-adjusted text. Can you please cite the section and phrase where this bill creates, invokes or tolerates racial profiling as claimed by the 200,000 (mostly-paid) protestors who legally marched in LA and those who illegally rioted in Phoenix? Do you recall Pelosi's famous quote in Congress (part of the Congressional Record, btw)? "We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it." Why are we seeing this attitude applied more and more if we are a nation of laws? Doesn't consent require information? If so, how is the governance of this country currently at the consent of the governed? Why are our president and our media striving to invoke racial violence (which they claim to oppose) to quash a state's effort to secure our border where the Feds cannot or will not do so? Ivan Ooze: Follow the link, get a copy of the law and prove to me that it is unconstitutional. Otherwise you are doing just as Holden did and are just as non-credible. Again, please note the lack of answers and the clear case of concealment of the question by Y!A. jurydoc - Thank you for a thoughtful answer. I agree, the most well-written law can be abused. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and the same goes for laws. However, what you cite is not a violation by the law but a potential violation by mis-application of the law. It is more of an establishment of auxiliary enforcement potential, or for use as a primary cause in evicting a troublemaker from the state without having to wait for him to molest a child or mug Granny. The fact that due process would still have to be rendered, and that illegal immigration IS a Federal crime, and that those illegally present in this country ARE, by definition, lawbreakers and thus criminals, seems to be overlooked by the protesters. My friend in Wisconsin said it best; "We are a nation of laws, and if we have no laws, we have no nation."

Who here believes that the U.S. was founded on Christian ideals? It seems that Christians like to draw up our founding fathers as Christians and claim that the Constitution was written under Christian ideals despite the lack of any mention of God in any U.S. text from that time, as well as totally ignoring all the times they talked bad about them. Christians, you claim a great many things in the nation should change because this is a Christian nation. The burden of proof is handed to you. Please convince us nonbelievers that our nation is not as secular as we believe it should be. Our founding fathers didn't put "In God We Trust" on Currency, it happened in 1865. Originally the coins had slogans like "We Are One" and Benjamin Franklin's favorite, "Mind Your Business" The Pledge of Allegance was written by a socialist and modified to included the U.S. name in the late 1800's and added the words "under god" to look better than the communists. Benjamin Franklin openly stated his dislike for Christianity and spoke of the U.S. nation as a failure because slavery was not abolished. Meanwhile Christian missionaries were still arguing which made better slaves, Africans or Native Americans. What did go think of that? THe Mayflower Compact was considered a failure. The government founded under that started slaghetering it's own and Prvodence Rhode Island was founded by those that fled from the abuse theocracy. "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 The guy who wrote our declaration of independence really thought we should be a Christian state? Nature's God was considered an insult to Christians at the time since referring to God as being of nature was akin to calling him a pagan God.

Why is "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency? I want to know how originally did this phrase get put on the money, who's idea was it, for what reason, and what steps were physically and/or legally taken to do it. Second, if the text of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" then why is there any mention of deity on our money to begin with and why is this phrase still on our currency? Isn't it basically against the law?

Does the U.S. follow its own constitution? I'm not asking for an answer that you got from a high school text book, in your own opinion or professional opinion do you think the U.S. follows its own constitution?

Did you find anything suspicious about Obama's speech on healthcare the other night? I just recieved this in my e-mail. It is pretty interesting. The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney 08.24.09 Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participa tion in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t20have any authority to legislate in20most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “ due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us. Mi http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Do you believe this Health Care Bill is about Health care? The following comment is from a retired attorney and constitutional law instructor who states he has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the impact upon our Constitution. It's a broader picture than just health care reform. Looks like something to sit up and pay attention to; once this sort of thing happens, it will be irreversible. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS ? Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; " The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the quier k : I deleted his name for obvious reasons but I left the site that all of this can be verified. Liberals you can ignore this all you want as expected. But it is not a interpretation it is all factual. I know you hate the truth because it makes Obama look bad . This administration is the most corrupt ever in USA history!

When his mouth is moving he is lying. Do you think that about 0bama? LAWYER TO LAWYER (Must read, if you want the truth) Is Obama Telling the Truth? Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:44 AM Read this, then decide if you think Obama is telling the truth in all his speeches. Bryant Sewall wsewall@Verizon.net THIS IS SOME SERIOUS READING!! The following comment is from Michael Connelly of Carrollton , Texas , a retired attorney and constitutional law instructor who states he has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the impact upon our Constitution. It's a broader picture than just health care reform. Looks like something to sit up and pay attention to; once this sort of thing happens, it will be irreversible. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed Bill that were being discussed, might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the Bill and its implications are in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The Bill does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of Government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this Bill or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration, authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine, because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten, in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; "The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but

Would you like to be educated in the new Healthcare Bill? THIS EXPLAINS THE DETAILS OF THE HEALTH BILL This man is a retired Attorney and Constitutional Law Instructor! His name is Michael Connelly. He has read the complete Healthcare Bill and shares the following information; "Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government. However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.. This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For t

Did you know Obamacare transfers most gov't power to the president&destroys 4th,5th,5th,6th,9th,10thamendments? amendments? The following is an analysis by a retired constitutional law professor: To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Professor, Ret. Carrollton , Texas

Could it be possible that the democrats/socialists are incapable of understanding the law of the land? and crafting laws consistent with these rules? C&P: Someone did read the entire House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009 From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor, Carrollton , Texas Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with Particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.. I was Frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed Might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard Or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its Implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are Saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly Where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free Health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably Forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of Business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about Personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and Most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, Payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will Be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In Fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of Providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover For the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of Government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law Or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power Between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government.. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration Authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American People and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't Have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I Defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any Authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama Administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your Personal financial information, and the information of your employer, Physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific Provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against Unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to Privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what The 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private Insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is Called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application Of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that Allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely Depriving someone of property without the "due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so Much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively Nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that Provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall Not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by The Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece Of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to Have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to Control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get The idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and Limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both Houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for This legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that Sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope t

If any one has read the entire House Bill on the affordable health care choices please voice oppinion? Someone did read the entire House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009 but is this what you belive too? Please read this and let me know if this is the truth? From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor, Carrollton , Texas Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U..S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law." So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us. Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor Carrollton , Texas

What is the most compelling argument against an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law..." These words start the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued that "no law means no law", and that Congress isn't allowed to make ANY rules which limit freedom of speech. No other justice has come close to agreeing with Justice Black, despite the actual text of the amendment. What are the most compelling reasons? What is so compelling about the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument? What's so bad about yelling "fire"? How do you explain the words "no law"?

Why do SOME liberals want the constitution to be considered a living document? By JONATHAN EWING, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 55 minutes ago PONCE, Puerto Rico - People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says. In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended." "Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory. According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs. Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution." "That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break." "But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things." Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court." "They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said. Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members. Joe M how about answer the question?

Why was the Constitution of 1787 created? I just need help answering questions from my u.s history study guide since the text book doesn't have the answer so not all information in the text is straightforward so if anybody wouldn't mind answering this question, thanks for the help! =) wow thanks yu guys i just need the reason why was it created, i still have more questions 2 complete before move on to other assignments anyways thanks again! ^-^

Criminal Law Questions I don't understand, of find in text..? Hello all. Fist semester and in the 8th week. Doing pretty well but there are some questions at the end on each chapter to study on to help w/ the exams. Here are out of 8 chapters (Over 160 Questions) I don't get/understand fully or didn't find in the text. Any help would be great. This is not for an exam, this is some questions from the study guide on each chapter to help me w/ my study guide. Know many of them, and found a lot out of 160 questions. Thought I would give the good 'ol yahoo community a shot at a few that knows the law. Thanks for any help. Exam is in 2-week's. Please don't get me wrong these are not exam questions, but chapter questions from the back of the book. "Criminal Law", Ninth Edition, by: Joel Samaha. New to this state and college, and kind of don't know anyone here yet. Trying to meet friends, but most want to party all the time & partying is cool, but my education is more important. Thank's all, never tried yahoo much, so hope to get some good honest answers. Thank you all, will vote for best. 1. The process by which lower courts base their opinions and decisions upon previous opinions and decisions of higher appellate courts is: a. Habeas Corpus b. Stare Decisis c. Corpus Delicti d. Nunc Pro Tunc Uncounscious Automatism is an: a. An element of the mens rea of the crime. b. Prohibited by the 5th amendment c. An Affirmative Defense d. Authorized by the 14th Amendment In Oklahoma, the element necessary to show criminal possession is: a. Mere Possession b. Acquiescence to a crime c. Dominion & Control d. Intent to distribute Intent required in addition to the Actus Reus of the crime is: a. Evil Intent b. Specific or General Intent c. Transferred Intent d. Strict liability A constitutionally protected "Right to Privacy" is the basis of the decision in the case of: a. Miranda v. Arizona b. Mapp v. Ohio c. Marbury v. Madison d. Griswold v. Connecticut Which 70's-80's era crime fighting drama featured three women crimefighters who never encounter their boss face to face but speak to him through a speakerphone? The crime of "Failure to Protect" a child from child abuse is an exampile of a crime of what? A person who knowingly exerts dominion and control over cocain kept in his automobile is in _______________ possession of that cocaine. The equal protection clause is found in the ____________ Amendment to th U.S. Constitution. Criminal acts which don't require an intent and require only that the Defendant committed the crime are called __________ ______________ crimes. A criminal statute using terms which would not be clear to a person of reasonable intellect is unconstitutional under ____________ ______ ____________________. A law enacted after the criminal incident the law prohibits, is unconstitutional under __________ ______ _______________. Merely prohibited conduct is known as _____________ __________________. Inherently evil conduct is known as _______________ ________ ____________. "Stare Decisis" requires judges to follow prior legislative history. a. True b. False Culpability is bsed up on a notion of blameworthiness and punishment. a. True b. False All material elements of a crime msut be proven by probable cause. a. True b. False Strict Liability crimes require no actus reus. a. True b. False Crimes of omission are based up on failure to perform legal duties. a. True b. False In Oklahoma, mere presence at or acquiescence in a crime without participation does not equal a crime. a. True b. False All of the following are legals of culpaility except: a. Negligently b. Recklessly c. Purposely d. Uncounscious Automatism In Powell v. Texas the Court held that: a. The Texas statute agains public drunkeness was constitutional b. Mr. Powell's addiction to alcohol was punishable. c. Mr. Powell should not drink before testifying in Court. d. Mr. Powell should not be allowed a trial de Novo. In State v. Loge, the defendant's conviction was affirmed because: a. The Court held that knowledge of the open container was not required. b. The state had proven Mr. Loge's mental state at the time of the crime. c. Mr. Loge was reckless. d. Minnesota is a good Samaritan State. According to the Supreme Court, cruel and unusual punishment is a punishment in which: a. The punishment is instantaneous. b. The punishment is jail time. c. The punishment is excessively mutilating to the body. d. The punishment is community service. The uncounscious creation of risk by one person upon others is: a. Carelessness I'm not by any means asking for anyone to do me how work. Just saying out of 160 Questions, here are a few I don't understand & if you would like to help and know the Law great if not no need to be rude. This is not a test question. I would be in class timed, it is a disscussion questions I don't undrstand. I don't think you are understanding, I do my homework, very hard I must say. I don't want to be a lawyer (LOL), it is a required class to take. I'm in my first year. I will pull an A on the exam, just want to know about these questions, (lol), why even respond to a question is it is going to be rude>>?? (thank you for the people that do read the whole article I wrote)..some people...lol.......too funny it's not so much i don't understand them ma'am it's more that I want to get an A in this class, which I'm 110% about all the others. I will tell you what I think. my answers are as follows, just want to make sure they are correct, hopefully this will prove to some of the people out there i don know, and have studied hard. d,b,c,a,c,d,b,b,a,c,b,d,a,b,c,d,d,c,t,f,f,t,t,t,t ..running out of room to aswe the first person that comm. on this said, "We're not here to do your homework; and if we were, odds are we would fail." I don't think so, or I wouldn't have asked you guys. There are very, very smart people out there. wow, the last two from both of you were awesome!!! now it's oing to be hard to choose best 1 (LOL) that way very well put by both of you, and I guess I can now see how somw might think that I wish to cheat and just ask for the answers due to the long question. I'm very worried now though !! I have put 8-weeks, really in this dorm room bymyself, because the other guy "Evgeniy" , my roommate don't speak english very much and hangs out with his Russian friends. I have tried to meet people, and set up study groups w/ a few from class, and I was waiting in the lib. for over 2-hrs. for the 4 to show, and guess what..I felt like a complete idiot. No one came, after they promised they would be there. I asked why in a very nice way and all had excuses, or hungover. I have went to my instructor and he was like, "okay I have 60 + students, plus some type of online class, just take notes and read the chapters". Yah.. my money went towards that advise for a instructor. Start over 8-weeks down drain Thank you writing in so details the both of you two.. just feel like that the other answers were totaly wrong that I posted, and worried other answers may be wrong for the exam. Nice to hear from two people whom seem to care. Thank you..mayby I can find some bleach to drink>>??Grrrrrrrr.... I must first off with a huge thank you!! Wow I’m very blown away with all the trouble you went through to help me out on these questions that are in the back of the chapter. As stated they are not for the exam its self, but to help me personally. Your answer are very in-depth and with your choices and you even went the extra mile to give reason why the answer would be correct. Point blank… you are a very intelligent person. Even after looking at your answers, went back into the book, and sure enough. I found them, just as you stated. You took a very long time in helping me, and so did the other two that was so nice in informining me of there opinions. WOW!!

Have you ever noticed that politicians forget....? things they said in the past? "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth! This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth! Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. His remarks followed that briefing. "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth! This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth! This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth! According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth! The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website. "Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth! This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago. She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies." "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth! The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman. It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth! These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth! This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth! "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth! Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and th

Can any body rewrite this using slang? Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, delivered March 4, 1861, was deeply conciliatory to Southern slave-holding interests. Abraham Lincoln touched the following points: Strongest possible federal support for the Fugitive Slave Law (and the Service/Labour clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Sec 2) He had just taken an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution" which enjoined him to see that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all states. There would be no invasion of the South unless such were necessary for him as President to fulfill his obligation to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the federal government. The Constitution was established "to form a more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had been, which was explicitly perpetual in name and text, and thus the Constitution too was perpetual. He added that even were the Constitution construed as a simple contract, it could not be legally rescinded without an agreement between all parties. He had no objection to the proposed Corwin amendment to the Constitution (that had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress to protect slavery in those states in which it already existed�though he thought that such was already protected by the original Constitution and that the Corwin amendment merely reiterated that which was already contained in the nation's highest legal document). (According to Henry Adams Lincoln actually lobbied to help the Corwin Amendment through both houses.) Nothing in the Constitution expressly says what either can or cannot be done regarding slavery in the territories. Mails would continue. i need this for homework

Would you be offended if the U.S. President swore his Constitutional Oath without swearing on a religious text? On this, the evening the American Presidential election is taking place, it seems like a good time to ask and find out what people think. For those who may not know, the Constitution of the United States requires all Presidents to swear the following oath: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Nowhere does it suggest a President should use a religious text to swear on. In fact, the only place in the Constitution itself the issue is addressed is in Article VI, where the Constitution says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". So, how many of you would be outraged or offended if whoever is elected President didn't swear on a Bible or Qur'an (or any other religious book you happen to like) but simply got up, raised his right hand, and swore the Presidential oath in front of everyone during his inauguration? You have reached an odd conclusion based on my question, Rev. Nowhere does it give any indication of my religious views, or express either approval or disapproval of the idea. 5 USC 3331 begins "an individual, except the President". The oath of office listed in that law is not the Presidential Oath of Office, and specifically exempts the President (it could not be applied to him anyway since there is explicit text in the Constitution which countermands it). http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331----000-.html The official oath of office for President can be found in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. You may find the official text of the document here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html If you would like to confirm that is the actual text, you can also find transcripts of the Constitution and the oath listed therein here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1 http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080 It occurs that some people may think Cornell has the text wrong or has taken it out of context, so you may find the official government text of 5 USC 3331 here: http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=849421347643+0+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Prop 8 and Act 1 supporters..how can you argue constitutionality? In the face of US Constitution Amendment 14 Section 1, how can anyone defend or argue to uphold these exculsionary acts? For those unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution...here is the aformentioned governing text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (us constitution amendment 14 section1) **please dont respond with 'popular vote' or other such 'rule of the people' non-sense..as its a given that the u.s. is not, nor has ever been a pure democracy. **Please dont respond with morals/fairytales.. Im looking for legal opinions or constitutional rule of law. **Tonalc.. if you read this amendment in its entirety..you'll see that it provides that fact that states can not enact law removing/denying privledges to its citizens????

The Court's power of judicial review is? a. specifically granted in the U.S. Constitution. b. granted by executive order of the president. c. inferred by the Court from the text and structure of the U.S. Constitution. d. granted by statute passed by Congress.

please help me with these questions for my political science class.... ? I have a test in couple days and this is a study guide. I got some answers, but i wanna be sure if it's right so please answer what you know Thank you _______________________ . What was the reason Thomas Hobbes supported a strong government? 3. According to John Locke, what is the basic objective of a government? 4. Who would benefit from the public goods provided by government? . Which is the most controversial of the major objectives of government? 6. What is called, each person having the same chance to succeed in life? 7. What is called a person who favors government ownership of some basic industries and a strong government role in directing economy? 8. What year the US constitution was written? 9. What was the key component of Virginia Plan? 10. Whose interests were most favored under the Virginia Plan? 11. Which state proposed the Great Compromise? 12. What did the Great Compromise provide for? 13. Under the Constitution, the president was to be elected by---------------? 14. What is called the principle that the Constitution founders divided powers between the central government and regional units? 15. What is the basic concept behind separation of powers? 16. The presidential veto is example of what principle? 17. What is the principle by which each branch of government exercise some control over other branches? 18. What is called the power specifically assigned to Congress by the U.S. Constitution? 19. How did the text of the US constitution deal with slavery? 20. How is a Constitutional Amendment proposed? 21. How many amendments are in the Bill of Rights 22. Which nation has the oldest written constitution? 23. The Tenth Amendment 24. What was the major impact of the Great Depression on American federalism? 25. What was called the basic principle upheld by the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland? 26. What is the general term for money paid by the national government to a state? 27. New Federalism was associated with which president? 28. The process by which a person becomes aware of political issues and facts is called------------ 29. What are the key agents of socialization for children and adults in the US? 30. Which minority group is the largest in the US today? 31. Writing letters to a senator would be what form of participation? 32. From which level of government do individual Americans tend to demand the most action? 33. Which political activities usually require the least initiative? to: all4curt .... west los angeles college it's not a homework, it's a study guide for test. This study guide is just for me, not teacher ... i have a book. but it's huge and i don't really understand politics, so it's hard for me to find unswers, but i need to study somehow

What is the main idea of this text? Thus, during the temporary nullification of the law, the results would be the same from those proceeding from an unqualified nullification, and the result of a convention might be, that 7 out of the 24 states, might make the temporary results permanent. It follows, that any State which could obtain the concurrence of six others, might abrogate any law of the U. S constructively whatever, and give to the Constitution any shape they please, in opposition to the construction and will of the other seventeen, each of the 17 having an equal right & authority with each of the 7. Every feature in the Constitution, might thus be successively changed; and after a scene of unexampled confusion & distraction, what had been unanimously agreed to as a whole, would not as a whole be agreed to by a single party. The amount of this modified right of nullification is, that a single State may arrest the operation of a law of the United States, and institute a process which is to terminate in the ascendency of a minority over a large majority, in a Republican System, the characteristic rule of which is that the major will is the ruling will. And this newfangled theory is attempted to be fathered on Mr. Jefferson the apostle of republicanism, and whose own words declare that "acquiescence in the decision of the majority is the vital principle of it." Well might Virginia declare, as her Legislature did by a resolution of 1833 "that the resolutions of 98--99, gave no support to the nullifying doctrine of South Carolina. And well may the friends of Mr. J. disclaim any sanction to it or to any constitutional right of nullification from his opinions. His memory is fortunately rescued from such imputations, by the very Document procured from his files and so triumphantly appealed to by the nullifying partisans of every description. In this Document, the remedial right of nullification is expressly called a natural right, and, consequently, not a right derived from the Constitution, but from abuses or usurpations, releasing the parties to it from their obligation. This is writing by James Madison. I want to use it as a primary source document for my history project, but I can't understand what he's talking about with his huge run-on sentences. Can anybody help me understand this?

14th Amendment and Voting Limitations? I am in the process of reading (on my own) Eric Foner's "A Short History of Reconstruction." It is an interesting read and I'm learning a lot. However, one passage in the text befuddled me and I seek assistance in its interpretation. In Chapter 6 of the book, Foner summarizes the goals and provisions of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For example, the amendment prohibited the states from abridging equality before the law and provided for a reduction in a state's representation proportional to the number of male citizens denied suffrage. Foner then discusses contemporary criticisms of the Amendment. And, this is where my confusion begins. "Because it implicitly acknowledged the right of states to limit voting because of race, Wendell Phillips denounced the Amendment as a 'fatal and total surrender." My question is, how can one read the 14th amendment and and implicitly interpret it as limiting voting to race? I read it but I don't see it. Thank you.

Can anyone answer these ?? True or false for each. 1. The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution has always been regarded by the courts as protecting citizens against arbitrary and capricious actions of their state and local governments. 2. Notwithstanding the mandate of the First Amendment, public assemblies may be prohibited in cases of clear and present danger to the public order or safety as long as there is imminent lawless action. 3. State legislatures have frequently passed statutes impinging directly on the freedom of religion. 4. Although there is no mention of "privacy" in the text of the Constitution, courts have recognized a constitutional right of privacy in the areas of sex, reproduction and family life. 5. Criminal laws that infringe First Amendment freedoms are subjected to strict scrutiny by the courts. 6. A person may not contest the validity of a law imposing restrictions on First Amendment freedoms unless he or she has been charged with violating the law.

Why is the 2nd Amendment always under attack by some People inside and outside of Our Government?*? * Why are they even Questioning, and Threatening the 2nd Amendments Credibility, Integrity, Validity, Legality, Meaning, Purpose, especially since Our Forefathers and Founding Fathers made it such an important part of Our Constitution.* What part of the 2nd Amendment don't they understand or believe? " The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."...If it is unacceptable and not understandable then we may as well not recognize any part of the U.S. Constitution in its Original Form and Text.* " Only a Criminal, Tyrant, or a Tyrannical Government is Afraid of the Armed American Citizen."... " Try Living Free in America Without Your Guns and Your Ammo; I Dare You."... " Live Free or Die."...Your thoughts...* * Also how can any Court Supreme, or any other Court feel that its even necessary or needed to Judge, or Rule on the 2nd Amendment at all especially even begin considering that any State has the Right to Ban Guns if they so desire to do so and Prevent, and Prohibit Gun Ownership to any U.S. Citizen on a State by State Basis?*...

Why do people think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue? 1) Marriage is NOT a right. Not even opposite-sex marriage is. Marriage is a privelege that states extend to their citizens in order to advance a state interest. The states have an interest in people bearing children in a civilized manner and raising them in a safe environment, which is through marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear children without outside assistance so allowing them to marry does not advance the state's interest. 2) Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it talk about marriage. I hate people who believe in same-sex marriage, yet want to limit gun ownership (which by the way, IS in the Constitution). Also these liberals claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional when that is also in the text of the Constitution (it defines treason and says its punishable by death). 3) Cases like Loving v. Virginia are irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate. Allowing inter-racial marriage does not interfere with the state interest of civilized child bearing, unlike same-sex marriage. Also, the pro-gay marriage crowd wonders why 70% of African-American voters vited Yes on Proposition 8. It's because you keep degrading their civil rights movement by comparing it to your own movement. Black America sent you a message in 2008: stop comparing us to you! In short, no one has an absolute right to marry. The state extends that privelege to groups that can advance its interests through marriage. Testing people for fertility before marriage would be expensive and therefore wouldn't advance the state's interest. Adoption of more children is a good reason to allow same-sex marriage. I never said I don't think same-sex marriage should be allowed I just said it s not a civil rights issue. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not the rights it comes with. Many states have civil unions and domestic partnerships that address this issue yet gay activists don't see them as sufficient. They want the institution or marriage. The states do not limit anyone's right to live together and form any sort of union. It is not illegal for two men or two women to live together as sexual partners.

need help editing a paper its due tomarrow?? lol? Over the years many employers have given their employees business owned cell phones to use. Today however, more and more bosses are asking to search through the phones. On the other hand, employees are wanting more privacy. While bosses do own the cell phones, workers have the right to privacy that is given to them in the 4th amendment. We as future working citizens should demand more privacy on our work cell phones. The right to privacy in our persons, papers, and effect, was given to us in the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment was added in 1791 on December 15th. This amendment is part of the bill of rights and guards against unreasonable search and seizures. It also states that a search warrant is needed for a person to search you and your belongings. This amendment is very important to us because it protects our privacy rights. I believe it is unconstitutional for a business owner to search through an employee’s personal messages. A person on the opposing side of the argument may say that the employees should have no worry about bosses searching through the phones if they aren’t doing anything bad. I say that if a boss trusts a worker enough to give them a cell phone they shouldn’t have to worry about checking the phones for non work related content. For example your boss shouldn’t have to look through your cell unless there is an extreme reason like a crime. Also in June of 2008 court ruled that there are expectations of privacy of personal text and emails, except if you give your boss permission ahead of time, your privacy rights are recognized by federal law. This is important because employers who snoop through the messages are invading the employees privacy. I believe that employers should ask employees upon hiring, if they can search through there phones. Some might not agree with position on this topic, but I feel that the constitution gave us these rights and they are strong. One may say that bosses search through phones to know if workers are doing other things besides work. The workers may be sending private and personal messages at lunch breaks or while away from work if they don’t have a separate cell. 80% off all bosses do look through phones. This means that 80% of employers are going against the constitution by illegally searching phones without warrants. I do not think that it is right for them to do so since they are suppose to have a signed warrant to be able to search your belongings. Employees should ask for probable cause if their boss want to search their phone. In my essay, I want to convince my reader that bosses shouldn’t be able to search phones just because. We need to stand up and defend our rights as U.S. citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that the constitution stays strong and our rights stay sturdy as well.

ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH. HELP ME IN ENGLISH???? 10 POINTS EST ANSWER.!? 1. What form of government does the Iroquois Constitution recommend for the Five Nations? (1 point) (1 point) * democratic * feudal * monarchy * socialist 2. Which is a common theme in Native American myths? (1 point) (1 point) * a strict work ethic * a belief that humans dominate the world * a great respect for the natural world * a scientific view of the origin of life 3. Which best explains the reason for Columbus’s favorable attitude toward the natives of San Salvador in his Journal of the First Voyage to America? (1 point) (1 point) * He wanted to spread the word of Christianity. * He wanted them to show him where gold was located. * He wanted to show them kindness and compassion. * He wanted them to work for him on the ship. 4. Which feature has the largest impact on the accuracy of a journal entry? (1 point) (1 point) * length * date of publication * bias * style 5. Which BEST describes William Bradford’s narrative account? (1 point) (1 point) * heroic * fact-based * opinionated * self-serving 6. What is an aphorism? (1 point) (1 point) * an entry in a narrative account * an entry from the Farmer’s Almanac * a Puritan form of poetry * a short saying with a message 7. What is the MAIN purpose of Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech in the Convention”? (1 point) (1 point) * Franklin identifies faults in the U.S. Constitution. * Franklin wants Convention members to sign the U.S. Constitution. * Franklin appeals for further discussion of the Constitution. * Franklin narrates the process involved in creating the Constitution. 8. How does Benjamin Franklin use concession in “Speech in the Convention”? (1 point) (1 point) * In his opening lines, he states that he does not approve of the Constitution. * He provides examples of other civilizations that have crumbled without a Constitution. * He admits that the Constitution is the best he has ever seen. * In his closing lines, he firmly commands his audience to sign. 9. Which statement expresses a central theme in “The Devil and Tom Walker”? (1 point) (1 point) * Attending church removes a person’s sins. * Love is influenced by money. * Greed is destructive. * Possessions are more important than people. 10. Which is true of “The Fall of the House of Usher”? (1 point) (1 point) * It is told from an omniscient point of view. * It is set in an isolated, remote place. * The characters possess heroic traits. * The plot involves greed and money. 11. Which BEST describes Transcendentalist beliefs? (1 point) (1 point) * conformist * individualistic * materialistic * passive 12. To challenge a text is to (1 point) (1 point) * accept the ideas in a text. * agree with the author. * take note of ideas in a text. * question the ideas in a text. 13. Which of the following MOST CLOSELY reflects the beliefs of Ralph Waldo Emerson? (1 point) (1 point) * The wonder of God is a mystery. * America’s strength is in its industry. * Strength is in numbers. * Be true to yourself. 14. In which of the following is a writer MOST LIKELY challenging a text? (1 point) (1 point) * a book critique * a book summary * a newspaper report * a travel journal 15. What is Thoreau’s MAIN argument in “Civil Disobedience”? (1 point) (1 point) * The government should be more involved in citizen’s lives. * Citizens should not pay taxes to the government. * Citizens should protest if they disagree with the government. * Government should immediately be removed. 16. In Walden, Thoreau advises that his audience “cultivate poverty.” Based on Thoreau’s philosophy, what does this mean? (1 point) (1 point) * People do not need extravagant possessions. * People should not give to charities. * The government should assist the poor. * People should share their possessions with others. 17. Literary Analysis and Reading Skills The point of view in which the narrator of a story provides descriptions of all of the characters’ thoughts and actions is known as (1 point) (1 point) * first person. * second person. * third person. * omniscient. 18. Read this stanza from Snowbound by John Greenleaf Whittier. Then answer questions 18 and 19. The sun that brief December day Rose cheerless over hills of gray, And, darkly circled, gave at noon A sadder light than waning moon. Slow tracing down the thickening sky Its mute and ominous prophecy, Which word from the poem BEST describes the mood? (1 point) (1 point) * ominous * brief * slowly * waning 19. Which line(s) in the poem use iambic tetr

help with english! ASAP!!!!? 1. What form of government does the Iroquois Constitution recommend for the Five Nations? (1 point) (1 point) democratic feudal monarchy socialist 2. Which is a common theme in Native American myths? (1 point) (1 point) a strict work ethic a belief that humans dominate the world a great respect for the natural world a scientific view of the origin of life 3. Which best explains the reason for Columbus’s favorable attitude toward the natives of San Salvador in his Journal of the First Voyage to America? (1 point) (1 point) He wanted to spread the word of Christianity. He wanted them to show him where gold was located. He wanted to show them kindness and compassion. He wanted them to work for him on the ship. 4. Which feature has the largest impact on the accuracy of a journal entry? (1 point) (1 point) length date of publication bias style 5. Which BEST describes William Bradford’s narrative account? (1 point) (1 point) heroic fact-based opinionated self-serving 6. What is an aphorism? (1 point) (1 point) an entry in a narrative account an entry from the Farmer’s Almanac a Puritan form of poetry a short saying with a message 7. What is the MAIN purpose of Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech in the Convention”? (1 point) (1 point) Franklin identifies faults in the U.S. Constitution. Franklin wants Convention members to sign the U.S. Constitution. Franklin appeals for further discussion of the Constitution. Franklin narrates the process involved in creating the Constitution. 8. How does Benjamin Franklin use concession in “Speech in the Convention”? (1 point) (1 point) In his opening lines, he states that he does not approve of the Constitution. He provides examples of other civilizations that have crumbled without a Constitution. He admits that the Constitution is the best he has ever seen. In his closing lines, he firmly commands his audience to sign. 9. Which statement expresses a central theme in “The Devil and Tom Walker”? (1 point) (1 point) Attending church removes a person’s sins. Love is influenced by money. Greed is destructive. Possessions are more important than people. 10. Which is true of “The Fall of the House of Usher”? (1 point) (1 point) It is told from an omniscient point of view. It is set in an isolated, remote place. The characters possess heroic traits. The plot involves greed and money. 11. Which BEST describes Transcendentalist beliefs? (1 point) (1 point) conformist individualistic materialistic passive 12. To challenge a text is to (1 point) (1 point) accept the ideas in a text. agree with the author. take note of ideas in a text. question the ideas in a text. 13. Which of the following MOST CLOSELY reflects the beliefs of Ralph Waldo Emerson? (1 point) (1 point) The wonder of God is a mystery. America’s strength is in its industry. Strength is in numbers. Be true to yourself. 14. In which of the following is a writer MOST LIKELY challenging a text? (1 point) (1 point) a book critique a book summary a newspaper report a travel journal 15. What is Thoreau’s MAIN argument in “Civil Disobedience”? (1 point) (1 point) The government should be more involved in citizen’s lives. Citizens should not pay taxes to the government. Citizens should protest if they disagree with the government. Government should immediately be removed. 16. In Walden, Thoreau advises that his audience “cultivate poverty.” Based on Thoreau’s philosophy, what does this mean? (1 point) (1 point) People do not need extravagant possessions. People should not give to charities. The government should assist the poor. People should share their possessions with others. 17. Literary Analysis and Reading Skills The point of view in which the narrator of a story provides descriptions of all of the characters’ thoughts and actions is known as (1 point) (1 point) first person. second person. third person. omniscient. 18. Read this stanza from Snowbound by John Greenleaf Whittier. Then answer questions 18 and 19. The sun that brief December day Rose cheerless over hills of gray, And, darkly circled, gave at noon A sadder light than waning moon. Slow tracing down the thickening sky Its mute and ominous prophecy, Which word from the poem BEST describes the mood? (1 point) (1 point) ominous brief slowly waning 19. Which line(s) in the poem use iambic tetrameter? (1 point) (1 point) the first two lines the first four lines the fifth line all of the lines 20. What is meter in poetry? (1 point) (1 point) the use of figurative language in a poem the details that develop the setting the arrangement of stressed and unstressed syllables the pattern of rhyming words in a poem 21. How does Edgar Allan Poe create a “single effect”? (1 point) (1 point) All of the sentences are each crafted in a similar style. All of the characters, incidents, and d

Guys i am sorry to ask anyone to help me but i just had foot surgery and i 1 day left to get 5 finals done!!!!? 1. What form of government does the Iroquois Constitution recommend for the Five Nations? (1 point) (1 point) democratic feudal monarchy socialist 2. Which is a common theme in Native American myths? (1 point) (1 point) a strict work ethic a belief that humans dominate the world a great respect for the natural world a scientific view of the origin of life 3. Which best explains the reason for Columbus’s favorable attitude toward the natives of San Salvador in his Journal of the First Voyage to America? (1 point) (1 point) He wanted to spread the word of Christianity. He wanted them to show him where gold was located. He wanted to show them kindness and compassion. He wanted them to work for him on the ship. 4. Which feature has the largest impact on the accuracy of a journal entry? (1 point) (1 point) length date of publication bias style 5. Which BEST describes William Bradford’s narrative account? (1 point) (1 point) heroic fact-based opinionated self-serving 6. What is an aphorism? (1 point) (1 point) an entry in a narrative account an entry from the Farmer’s Almanac a Puritan form of poetry a short saying with a message 7. What is the MAIN purpose of Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech in the Convention”? (1 point) (1 point) Franklin identifies faults in the U.S. Constitution. Franklin wants Convention members to sign the U.S. Constitution. Franklin appeals for further discussion of the Constitution. Franklin narrates the process involved in creating the Constitution. 8. How does Benjamin Franklin use concession in “Speech in the Convention”? (1 point) (1 point) In his opening lines, he states that he does not approve of the Constitution. He provides examples of other civilizations that have crumbled without a Constitution. He admits that the Constitution is the best he has ever seen. In his closing lines, he firmly commands his audience to sign. 9. Which statement expresses a central theme in “The Devil and Tom Walker”? (1 point) (1 point) Attending church removes a person’s sins. Love is influenced by money. Greed is destructive. Possessions are more important than people. 10. Which is true of “The Fall of the House of Usher”? (1 point) (1 point) It is told from an omniscient point of view. It is set in an isolated, remote place. The characters possess heroic traits. The plot involves greed and money. 11. Which BEST describes Transcendentalist beliefs? (1 point) (1 point) conformist individualistic materialistic passive 12. To challenge a text is to (1 point) (1 point) accept the ideas in a text. agree with the author. take note of ideas in a text. question the ideas in a text. 13. Which of the following MOST CLOSELY reflects the beliefs of Ralph Waldo Emerson? (1 point) (1 point) The wonder of God is a mystery. America’s strength is in its industry. Strength is in numbers. Be true to yourself. 14. In which of the following is a writer MOST LIKELY challenging a text? (1 point) (1 point) a book critique a book summary a newspaper report a travel journal 15. What is Thoreau’s MAIN argument in “Civil Disobedience”? (1 point) (1 point) The government should be more involved in citizen’s lives. Citizens should not pay taxes to the government. Citizens should protest if they disagree with the government. Government should immediately be removed. 16. In Walden, Thoreau advises that his audience “cultivate poverty.” Based on Thoreau’s philosophy, what does this mean? (1 point) (1 point) People do not need extravagant possessions. People should not give to charities. The government should assist the poor. People should share their possessions with others. 17. Literary Analysis and Reading Skills The point of view in which the narrator of a story provides descriptions of all of the characters’ thoughts and actions is known as (1 point) (1 point) first person. second person. third person. omniscient. 18. Read this stanza from Snowbound by John Greenleaf Whittier. Then answer questions 18 and 19. The sun that brief December day Rose cheerless over hills of gray, And, darkly circled, gave at noon A sadder light than waning moon. Slow tracing down the thickening sky Its mute and ominous prophecy, Which word from the poem BEST describes the mood? (1 point) (1 point) ominous brief slowly waning 19. Which line(s) in the poem use iambic tetrameter? (1 point) (1 point) the first two lines the first four lines the fifth line all of the lines 20. What is meter in poetry? (1 point) (1 point) the use of figurative language in a poem the details that develop the setting the arrangement of stressed and unstressed syllables the pattern of rhyming words in a poem 21. How does Edgar Allan Poe create a “single effect”? (1 point) (1 point) All of the sentences are each crafted in a similar style. All of the characters, incidents, and details within a story create one mood.

English Help ten points for best answer? 7. What is the MAIN purpose of Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech in the Convention”? * Franklin identifies faults in the U.S. Constitution. * Franklin wants Convention members to sign the U.S. Constitution. * Franklin appeals for further discussion of the Constitution. * Franklin narrates the process involved in creating the Constitution. 8. How does Benjamin Franklin use concession in “Speech in the Convention”? * In his opening lines, he states that he does not approve of the Constitution. * He provides examples of other civilizations that have crumbled without a Constitution. * He admits that the Constitution is the best he has ever seen. * In his closing lines, he firmly commands his audience to sign. 9. Which statement expresses a central theme in “The Devil and Tom Walker”? * Attending church removes a person’s sins. * Love is influenced by money. * Greed is destructive. * Possessions are more important than people. 10. Which is true of “The Fall of the House of Usher”? * It is told from an omniscient point of view. * It is set in an isolated, remote place. * The characters possess heroic traits. * The plot involves greed and money. 11. Which BEST describes Transcendentalist beliefs? * individualistic * materialistic * passive *conformist 12. To challenge a text is to * accept the ideas in a text. * agree with the author. * take note of ideas in a text. * question the ideas in a text. 13. Which of the following MOST CLOSELY reflects the beliefs of Ralph Waldo Emerson? * America’s strength is in its industry. * Strength is in numbers. * Be true to yourself. The wonder of God is a mystery. 14. In which of the following is a writer MOST LIKELY challenging a text? * a book critique * a book summary * a newspaper report * a travel journal

Do you agree with this assessment of abortion policy in the U.S.? Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court. Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. Goes to show people aren't interested in following the Constitution. Try reading the 10th amendment. Anything not specifically enumerated is left for the states. Any other arguments fall under that umbrella. It's too bad people are more interested in suiting their side of the argument, thus creating division, instead of following the law of the land. Why does everybody want the federal government to do everything? A one-size-fits-all policy for everybody doesn't even make sense. That's why the 10th amendment exists.

HOMEWORK HELP PLEASE, POLITICAL SCIENCE!!!!? I need urgent help, this is due tomorrow!!! This is my homework for Political Science and below it is how i did it. i need to know is this acceptable or will i get a bad grade. pleas read the instructions and the articles i have chosen and also my paragraphs and tell me what you think. will i pass or fail with it? please answer soon!!!! Instructions: The weekly assignment will be to cut out and bring to class one news article from a current (no more than two weeks old)newspaper, magazine, or news website, that ties in to any issues or topics raised in the text covered that week. You must include two paragraphs: (1) a one paragraph summary of the news article; and (2) a paragraph that explains how the article relates to the reading or lectures for that week. Now, the subjects covered this week were : America in the 21st century; The Constitution; The Declaration of Independence; the Federalist Papers; articles I-VIII of the Constitution. i chose to use the Constitution and the the article i chose is below (click the link): http://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/ci_13597732 after reading that, please read my paragraphs that i wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S Constitution defines our rights that the government is prohibited to hinder with. These rights are namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Health care is not in the U.S Constitution because it is not a human right and in fact impedes on our rights. A government-run health care system helps some people at the expense of the tax payers and that violates the rights of the individuals whose money is taken to pay for it. Health care is the responsibility of the individual, not the country or the other citizens. The pursuit of happiness may be a right but no one is guaranteed happiness and all their wants. In this week we discussed a few different topics. Among these topics was the U.S Constitution, which this article most closely relates to. The article addresses which rights are defined and protected by the U.S Constitution. It speaks about the difference between human rights, such as life, and human wants such as a government-run health care system. The Constitution doesn't mention a health care system because that is not a human right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE HELP IMMEDIATELY!!!!! i understand. thanks. i'll be back after i make changes and see then. but i think you should know i don't support this article. i just used it because it was the only thing i can find, nothing else that relates to those topics could be found in the news recently. the assignment is due tomorrow so i can't change my mind and search something else. i don't exaclty agree with the article but i have to support it for this so i can pass.

is this where you want your money going??? do you want your military family to be under the UN? I wrote about this last Fall, but it's about to happen, unless Americans stand up and say, enough is enough! It's already "half-approved," and it's in the hands of the Senate, now. Please take the time to read this . . . after all, it is your money they plan to give the world! SENATE BILL S. 2433 THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT According to David Bossie, President of the group 'Citizens United for American Sovereignty', based out of Merrifield Virginia , website: http://www.citizensunited.org/ the above- mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about and know now! This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. (President-Elect) Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations. The noble sounding name of this bill, 'The Global Poverty Act' is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate (the House has already passed it), this bill would require the U.S. To increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That's on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out! (and, on top of the Trillion dollar-Plus Stimulus and Bail-out monies taxpayers are expected to pay). In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates. According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations' goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they? 1 The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution. 2 A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. Soldiers to serve under U.N. Command. 3 A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons --which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms. 4 The ratification of the ' Kyoto ' global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures. Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don't they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes. It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate. Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity. Please send this to as many folks out there in your networks as you can. And ASAP! If you want to see the actual legislation, go here. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text Thank you.

Lesson Planning help!? I am taking a two week intersession class. As an assignment, I have to write a comprehensive lesson plan for one of my education classes and I am unsure of how to go about doing a few things. I have to write a language arts lesson plan using expository text. I chose a story on the constitutional convention called "A More Perfect Union" for ages 7-12. I am unsure on how to word my objective on the lesson plan. Do I use the word-for-word statement from the framework or do I write my own and then reference the framework? I am using Mississippi Language Art Framework and Mississippi Social Studies Framework. I have to incorporate both in my lesson using Competency 2 (comprehension). I want to do something on showing the students how these men (writers of the U.S. Constitution) worked together to create something that greatly effected our nation. That's what the text is about, the way these men came together and worked through their differences. I guess my question is how do I make a history lesson into a language arts lesson without them just getting out a sheet of paper and writing stuff down. I need to do more than just a journal entry. Any kind of advice would be great appreciated!

CAN U READ TEXT BELOW ,& ANSWER THE ISSUES RAISED? I THANK U IF U READ , BUT U MAY NOT REPLY.? 11.15.2009 Local News: Colonie, NY | Sign Up | Sign In 1 2 3 Fort Hood Mourners Grieve for Soldiers Killed at Fort Hood Gitmo Source: Illinois Prison Eyed for Gitmo Inmates Pakistan Militants Attack Anti-Taliban Mayor in Pakistan Home Forums Top Stories Popular Health Care Debate Local US Politics World Sports Entertainment Offbeat Other Topics ColonieNews Forums & Polls News Wire Entertainment Shopping Yellow Pages Coupons (1 new) Real Estate Jobs Local Singles Photos Topix Toolbar Weather 61°F | 43°F 2 spl prosecutor be appointed to investigate civil corruption in recording Posted in the Colonie Forum Ads by Google Upstate New York - A "No Gimmicks, No Hassles" approach to expanding your business www.ShovelReady.com Current NY Foreclosures - NY Foreclosures - NY Hud Homes $1 for a 15-Day Pass www.CurrentForeclosures.com/NYComments Showing posts 1 - 15 of15 rain storm_activist Saranac Lake, NY Reply » |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#1 Jul 7, 2009 DEMOCRACY IN USA IN QUESION : LEGENDS, POWERFULS ACT THEI OWN WAY: LAWS ARE VIRTUALLY SECONDARY TO SUCH POEPLE : MICHAEL JACKSON : BH OBAMA ISSUES: , Terrorism, Terrorists, U S Constitution, War Issues, Wire actions were pending in many court,usdc,usca, supreme court usa, i c j against obama for his unqualified posting in the position of u s president at the white house. If Obama loses his position the rev dr kamal roy could be technically elected president, may be on default. dr roy a poor but a law , manament, dininity graduate with doctoral degrees et al is authorized to seek justice pursuat to laws of defendant testament i e the u s constitution…..etc etc .you may visit web pages with search words viz ” Kamal Karna roy My Home /> Ask Your Question 2 Categorize your question Took Your : The rev kamal karna roy and 78000 + association as conglomerate of unincorporated association within h h i-w r group moved in court usd court , n d new york, albany new york 12207 on 7.4. 2009 with civil complaint vs usa govt, washington dc, that U S CONSTITUTION MAY FAIL SO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR SHOULD BE APPOINTED BY U S ATTORNEY GENERAL TO of kins of 2 children. that michael MAY NOT havePURCHASED single handed parentood for himself ,WITH MONEY SETTLEMENT. EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY. THE MATTER IS HUMAN TRAFFICING. MUST BE STOPED UNDER LAWS OF NATION, USA. iN GOD WE TRUST. gOD IS conceppt of human development in democracies et al. U s govt & OFFICERS & associate state govt viz california may not be allowed to defeatt the constitution & thus complaints were filedwas challenged in u s d court for northern district of new york 445 broadway, albany n y 12207 ,USA by H I I WORLD RELIGIONS GROUP , WITH 78995+unincorporated outsource usa &in usa associations as a conglomerate within non profit tax exempt (IRS):Handicap interests International World religions group, EIN & tax exempt i d no 133566610: one officer – rev dr Kamal karna Roy moana Albert Join the community Saranac Lake, NY 1 min ago civil action filed in usd court for northern istrict,N Y at albany ny12207 by kamal karna roy for self & 78950+ nos asssociations as a conglomerate et al as plaintiffs pro se v. usa govt; estate of michael jackson at cafornia; debbie rowe , former wife of jackson; two minor stepchildren of jackson c/o catherine jackson; state of california; et al; filed as on 7.6. 2009 as amended; to lawfully suggestive order of court to appoint special prosecutors to investigate corruption issues in recording of births of step children of jackson during marriage with debbie rowe(mother of such children,while michael was not donor of sperm for birth of such children; fake recording in child birth and illegal child trafficking from debbie to jackson when child molestation chages were raised were alleged in public records, debbie was divorced from jackson & children were never adopted legally, by jackson; the issue violated many laws and safety of minor chidren as members of we the people of usa pursuant to u s constitution: th testament of u s constitution, was also cited as defendant in the action as laws of equities cited in us constitution were left for violations @ options of rich, powerfuls,legends viz michael causing pain, harm,damages and deficit causing sentiments of plaintiffs including the rev dr Kakmal karn k roy , one of plaintiffs above, filed action pro se, as officer of conglomerate of associations as plaintiffs see ealier court filings as cited below. Prayers included that assets of estate of deceased michael jackson nbe siezed by usa govt for possible judgement of traficing of minor children for unknown purposes and defendants’ role in the matters causing harm to ideals of people in usa including plaintiff dr roy et al……. illegal rain storm_activist Saranac Lake, NY Reply » |Report Abuse |Judge it! |#2 Jul 8, 2009 2 spl prosecutor be appointed to investigate civil corruption in r

I need help for my political science test please? Question 51 text Question 51 2 points Save The only two presidents ever to be impeached are Bill Clinton and Question 51 answers James Madison. James Buchanan. Andrew Johnson. Warren Harding. Richard Nixon. Question 52 text Question 52 2 points Save President Bush's decision, with the acquiescence of Congress, to treat captives taken in Afghanistan as unlawful enemy combatants but to deny them the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Convention is an example of Question 52 answers an express power. a delegated power. a discretionary power. an emergency power. an executive privilege. Question 53 text Question 53 2 points Save As part of a renewed commitment to direct mobilization in recent years, George W. Bush's campaign Question 53 answers used new technologies to reach out to millions of new voters. targeted infrequent voters with personal appeals and direct mailings. targeted affluent voters using new technologies. used direct mailings to reach out to millions of new voters. targeted religious groups and voters with personal housecalls. Question 54 text Question 54 2 points Save Which of the following statements about regional tensions during the drafting of the Constitution is LEAST accurate? Question 54 answers The delegates eventually agreed to count three-fifths of the enslaved population for purposes of representation and taxation. Although the South had by far the largest number of slaves, slavery was legal in every state at the time that the Constitution was written. In order to appease the Lower South, the Constitution prevented the government from banning the international slave trade for at least twenty years. Southern agriculturists managed to win a concession that the new government would have no power to tax exports. Northern interests wanted to ensure that the new government would have adequate power to regulate international commerce. Question 55 text Question 55 2 points Save Which of the following rights cannot be infringed by state governments because of the principle of selective incorporation? Question 55 answers the right to bear arms the right not to have soldiers quartered in one's home the right to a grand jury hearing freedom from self-incrimination freedom from excessive bail Question 56 text Question 56 2 points Save Which of the following statements about American budgetary deficits is most accurate? Question 56 answers Foreign investors are legally prohibited from purchasing U.S. securities. Over the past thirty years, the deficit has risen sharply when Democrats controlled the White House and dropped precipitously when Republicans controlled it. The government currently spends over half of its revenue paying interest on its debt. The current deficit is about 12 percent of GDP, the largest since WWII. Treasury bonds are increasingly difficult to sell, as they provide low returns, and the government has defaulted on them repeatedly in the past forty years. Question 57 text Question 57 2 points Save The American nation's experience with representative government dates back to the founding of the House of Burgesses in Question 57 answers 1619. 1651. 1689. 1763. 1775. Question 58 text Question 58 2 points Save Which of the following statements about the second party era is LEAST accurate? Question 58 answers The era witnessed a significant decline in voter turnout. The era witnessed the appearance of the first mass political parties in U.S. history. The era witnessed structural changes such as the popular election of presidential electors. The era witnessed the use of rallies, bonfires, and parades to mobilize popular support. The era was brought to an end largely by the failure to contain the slavery question. Question 59 text Question 59 2 points Save In the case of Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that Question 59 answers because the internment of Japanese-Americans was based solely on race, it was unconstitutional. while the government had the right to send Japanese immigrants to internment camps, their native-born children, as American citizens, must be freed. although Congress might have had the power to order the internment of Japanese Americans, the president could not constitutionally do so by executive order. in times of war, American citizens have no civil rights the government is obligated to respect. the summary internment of Japanese Americans was a constitutional measure. Question 60 text Question 60 2 points Save Which of the following types of interest groups is more likely to give to the Republican Party than to Democrats? Question 60 answers energy and natural resource groups communications and electronics groups lawyers and lobbyists labor groups ideology and single interest groups Question 61 text Question 61

Does anyone else have a problem with this question? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvRKDHV4bk_rB08J02F0F_7d7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20080212052619AAZHybN I do and think about it before you answer it. This is the R&S section so why not cut and paste from religous text if you go to the cooking section people cut and paste recipes or if go to the Politics people cut and paste the U.S. Constitution does this make those people in these sections morons? Whenever you make a quote from any text are you suppose to just "wing it" or use best guess? To me that would be moronic. Lets say it is spam. The question is are you that offended by cutting and pasting text that you report it and if so why?

Do you think Obama will be asked to say "So help me God" when he take his oath of office? Heres the correct text for the oath as it's written in the law. ""Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' '' - U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 " I can't recall a time when the words "So help me God" were NOT also added to the end of this oath... Do you think we'll finally see a break from that tradition... and should the tradition be broken? . Personally... I'll be disappointed if the justice issuing the oath adds the unothorized phrase. in my mind it isn't necessary and I find it to be a tad insulting to my intellect.

How did the text of the US constitution deal with slavery? How did the text of the US constitution deal with slavery? ...and one more question What is called the principle that the Constitution founders divided powers between the central government and regional units?

what reference does the text of the constitution make to religion? what reference does the text of the constitution make to religion?

What was the text of the 2 amendments to the constitution not in the bill of Rights? There were 12 Proposed amendments to the constitution of which 10 were ratified where can I find the text of the 2 amendments that did not pass and become the bill of Rights?

Where can I find the full text of the Constitution? I yahoo and all I get is pages where you have to click on the particular article or amendment you are interested in instead of the full text. I want the full text!

Where does it state in the original 1789 text of the constitution that March 4th is to be inauguration day? Just wondering why March 4th was always inauguration day up until the 1930's (Unless the 4th fell on a Sunday then the inaugurations were done on the 5th). I've been looking around on the wikipedia.com site, and they have all the constitutional text, but don't see where it explicitly said March 4th is the day. Thanks!

Can anyone quote the actual text in the constitution that protects the right to have an abortion? which amendment is it in?

MLA help ASAP regarding in-text citation for a constitution? i'm trying to quote from the 1987 philippine constitution and more specifically article 3 of said constitution which is the bill of rights. it's from an online source, gov.ph. i've tried looking around for the proper method of in-text and bibiliographical citation in mla format but nothing. if anyone can enlighten me now because i need this asap it'd be much appreciated. thanks. :) ok i'm not really so much concerned about the bibliographical citation. supposing i quoted directly from article 3, section 3 of the 1987 philippine constitution. what do i put in the parenthesis after the direct quote?

Why is the Supreme Court allowed to overturn the Constitution when they are charged with defending it? By definition, the Supreme Court is obligated to use the text of the Constitution as the primary source behind its rationales and decision-making. They serve as its defenders. Why then, in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, or in the current calls to have the California Supreme Court strike down the gay marriage amendment, is the Court allowed to overturn the precedent of previous courts or even the amended text of the Constitution itself? Regardless of the Justices' view of the intent of the founders, are they not compelled to weigh the text of the Constitution and the precedent of previous Courts over what they think is the founders' intent? Also, before I get the inevitable "Y R U A HOMOPHOBE RACIST ZOMG" replies, I'm asking this from a purely legal standpoint; I have no problem at all with the cases I used as an example. Nor do I think they're incorrect. I'm just wondering what the rationale for the Court to do this is.

Constitution or Bill of Rights, etc question. I am looking for certain text. Help? I am looking for the text in one of these docs that states that the people's rights are God given and we lend them to the government. Can anyone help, please. What section, etc?

Does the reading of two prayers at the opening of Australian Parliament breach the Australian Constitution? Ref: http://australianpolitics.com/parliament/factsheets/02typicalday.htm A Typical Sitting Day, House of Reps, Factsheet #2 "The Speaker commences proceedings by reading two Prayers (as required by the standing orders, one being the Lord's Prayer), with Members standing, ..." Ref: http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/116.shtml Australian Constitution - Section 116 - Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. I understand that Australia is mostly Christian, however this is a question about the legal issue. The Lord's Prayer is most definately "imposing a religious observance" and if it is stated in the standing orders, is it an imposed law? Is it Constitutional?

where can i find in full text section 1464 title 18 of the constitution?

How do you outline the US Constitution? i need to this for my Political Science class. any tips will help and also where can i find the full text of the Constitution online? thanx :)

The text states that "the electors go through the form set out in the Constitution...? but their behavior is a far cry from its original intent." Cite evidence to support or refuse this statement.

Over the last 100 years, which of the three branches of government has violated the Constitution the most? Don't say that the Supreme Court cannot violate the Constitution because it's ruling are the Supreme law of the Land as Congress for two reasons: 1) The Supreme Court has upheld laws that clearly are not seen in the text of the Constitution. 2) Congress can refuse to appropiate funds for the Supreme Court.

What was the major contribution of John Locke to the forming of the American Constitution? The question says "Explain the major contribution of John Locke to the forming of the American Constitution." but i cant find John Locke in the text book. pleeeeeease help!

How can we amend the constitution? I have to create a comic strip depicting how you can amend the constitution. The comic strip should have a title, 8 sections using images / pictures and text how to amend the constitution. Make sure that it is in order and that it can easily be followed .. what can i draw in picture 1 ?2?3?4?? im confused HELP!!

what is the patriation of the Canadian constitution? Ok so in school we're trying to learn about the resolution to amend the constitution if Canada in 1981. I tried reading the text twice and i still didn't understand. I tried looking it up online and still no light bulb going off. Clearly I have a hard time understanding so if anyone could help me out maybe put it into words that a slow person like me could understand id really really appreciate it

I plan on doing a report on the USA constitution and i need to know where to look for info? OK i have the document in my text book so i have that. but i need 3 sources that i will use in my report than i can show my professor befor i can begin. now the main topic for my report is explaning what the orignal constitution ment to our founding fathers (the peramble to the bill of rights.) so i was woundering if you could give me some websites or some search topics that will come up with the least ammout of BS. also on the side could you give me some Tips on how to look for web site that give you good infomation with out getting all the BS? this kind of info would help me on future college papers. wikipedia will not work. it has to be indepth stuff.

Where in the Constitution is the seperation of church and state that people quote? I want specific text. It is not enough to say that a court decision determines this. If it is not there, the best answer will tell me what is. crazylandp you fell for the trap I set. The First Amendment does not say that. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" Brian you quote the 1st Amendment, but where does it say that. You make my point for me. There is no seperation, only the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion and the prohibition of not allowing someone to practice their own. sway_ii exactly. The First Amendment has been misrepresented to attack Christianity and its practice. It has not been used to attack Judism or Islam. For the record I do not belong to a specific religion nor go to church. I do believe in Christian values and the lack of such is a big problem in this country.

What are the pros and cons of having the Philippine Constitution changed to bring peace to Mindanao? Please give substantial, informative and clear sides on what your stand is. If you live in the philippines, call or text me-09151168175

What happens to Muslims who fail the trial that tests that they will protect the Constitution? I am studying the immigration and i really want to know because they don't tell me in the text book

what are the main points to articles 5 and 6 of the US constitution? I'm writing a report on them but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the text, can someone please give me like the basic points to each so i can understand what in the world it's saying? thanks alot!

Does the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution abolish legitimate claims for "state's rights"? Why or why not? ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ "Section 1.: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

What is the Preamble to the Constitution? I have to memorize it for school and forgot my text book. I found it online but don't know if its right.

Do you like the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? TEXT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is great, isn't it? A lot of many European States have got bad laws which punishe simple expressions of thought. Why?

Should the Australian Constitution be rewritten on wombat-poo paper? http://www.neatorama.com/2009/04/19/wombat-poo-paper/ http://australianpolitics.com/articles/constitution/full-text-of-the-australian-constitution-as-amended

A question for members of the Constitution Party? First off, I am not intending for this to be an incendiary or offensive question. It's something I am genuinely curious about, and I mean no offense by it. Certainly, if we're mature enough to discuss politics, we're mature enough to listen to each other, even when we don't agree, and to try and at least broaden our global perspective. Okay. As I understand it, the Constitution Party's mission is, in their own words, "to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries." Most of its political platforms are strongly rooted in Biblical belief. However, the Party's mission also professes a desire to return to uphold and reflect the principles in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence (and, as previously stated, the Bible). However, the separation of church and state is clearly established in the Constitution, first in the establishment clause and then in the free exercise clause. The way I interpret this is that no religious doctrine should be used as a basis for establishing a political one. My question is simply: do Constitution party members believe that these two clauses call for a secular government? If so, how do they reconcile this belief with the belief that the Bible should be used as a basis for the laws of the United States? In short, how can a political doctrine be based both on upholding the separation of religion and government AND the creation of governmental laws from the dogmas of a religious text? Thank you. To Albert's American Blog: I agree with your interpretation, perhaps I should have more clearly stated it above. However, there are many issues about which different religions do not see eye-to-eye. For instance, many denominations of Christianity do not support same-sex marriage because they believe the Bible outlaws it, but Reform Judaism believes that same-sex unions should be considered marriage. If one is a proponent of outlawing same-sex marriage on the grounds of the Bible, even though the religious documents from other doctrines believe that it is not immoral, isn't that, effectively, giving preference to one particular religion? As I see it, to comply with the Constitution you must either remove religion from the government or else incorporate every single religion (and lack thereof) into your politics. The latter is obviously impossible, as there are an infinite number of belief systems that conflict with one another constantly. So I see only one practical solution.

do u think this article caused problems for texans of mexican descent that held titles of land under spanish? and mexican rule? Does this article help to consolidate the power of white texans? Check out article XIII- Spanish and Mexican land titles (repealed in 1969) AT THIS LINK http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/text/IART13.html

Where can I find the exact text of the Military Commisions Act of 2006? So, I keep reading about how bad it is for America and how it abolishes habeas corpus and how it poos all over the constitution, but I want proof! I want to see exactly what the bill says. Where can I find this information? Any links, please?

Can someone please help me translate the following text in spanish? Can you reveal the name of any state that mentions on its Constitution the Catholic Church? It would be appreciated if you can also quote the article. The Constitution of the Italian Republic: Art. 7 - The State and the Catholic Church are, each within its own order, independent and sovereign. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran Treaties. Changes to the Treaties accepted by both parties do not require the procedure for constitutional amendment. It would be also appreciated the web site address. This is the web site of the Italian Constitution: www.quirinale.it/costituzione/costituzione.htm . Speaking of constitutions, I have found a site where there is the list of the Constitutions (those historical also), indexed by country. It doesn't seem a rarity for the name of the Church Catholic to be written on the constitutions. And here is the link: http://www.dsg.unito.it/dircost/paesi.htm

How many Americans have the Star-Spangled Banner and Constitution commited to memory? And by that I mean the entire texts, not just one stanza, or one section. *committed

do u agree that the US constitution and the Bible present the same problem? that is : why everyone is always thinking they know how to interpret the text into relevant contemporary society?... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq0wBc6fQcgArmP_5whKBnzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090823184514AANqGhS people who think they have proof they know what the founding fathers wanted... ur proving my point. there really isnt any relevant piece of society that exists today that existed back in those times. So why do we apply a 200 year old document? We dont, we create amendments and expand it. Just as the bible is constantly changed or adapted to fit today's age.

Where can I find the full text 1933 Portuguese constitution in English? I need it for a research paper. Thanks.

POLL: To make kids understand the United States Constitution better, should it be rewritten in text speak? "we peeps of teh US, in Order to frm a mo pfct Union..."

To what extent was fear of "too much democracy" a motive for writing the US Constitution? Its a thought question for my ap class and i am having trouble finding it in the text.