B&H and Adorama Closed!

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

OK, so you do not believe in the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth
Amendment is there for anyone who reads plain English; therefore
you do not read plain English.

You are repeating what the fellow before you wrote, so I'll ask you
the same question: What do you think the Ninth Amendment means?

I don't want you to strain yourself, so let me help you out he Do
you think it means *any* right *not* enumerated must exist?

Only those rights that can be supported by other parts of the
constitution, such as the right to privacy.

There is no general "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution.



My turn to ask you a question: What rights do you believe are included
in the Ninth Amendment?

There are no rights "included in the Ninth Amendment."

The Amendment simply says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

Some framers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of Rights at all,
because they were afraid that listing only certain rights might disparage
others. That was the reason for the Ninth Amendment: to make it clear that
the rights of the people were not *limited* to only those enumerated.

The Ninth Amendment can't be used to just make up any "rights" you like, as
you are trying to do.

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

With almost every message in which you mention Jews, you
demonstrate more and more clearly your antipathy towards Jews.

So you keep saying. If I'd demonstrated anything like the
"antipathy towards Jews" that you have repeatedly towards
Christians, you would have a point.

Keep repeating that lie; if you repeat it often enough, you may
actually begin to believe it. I have not shown any antipathy
towards Christians or Christianity.

Allow me to restore the part of that paragraph you cringed away from:

So you keep saying. If I'd demonstrated anything like the "antipathy
towards Jews" that you have repeatedly towards Christians, you would
have a point. I have not. If you think I have, please cite it. If you
can't cite it, stop lying.

Well, since I haven't shown any antipathy towards Christians, I can't
show where you have shown antipathy towards Jews that I have shown
towards Christians.

I can, and have, shown your antipathy towards Jews,

No, you have not. And you cannot, since I have no "antipathy towards Jews"
per se.


and there's no need
for me to do so repeatedly since you reject it.

I haven't asked you to do it "repeatedly." Just once would be sufficient.
You cannot do so at all in a way that any reasonable person could make sense
out of. The only question is whether you are deliberately lying, or honestly
as foolish as your remarks make you out to be.



But you have yet to show my supposed antipathy towards Christians,
although you pretend that my desire to keep religion out of government,
and my desire to keep from being bombarded with religious propaganda is
an antipathy towards Christians and/or Christianity.

What other "being bombarded with religious propaganda" besides Christian
have you objected to, for example?

Perhaps you live in some other country. I live in the U.S., I am completely
non-religious (which includes being non-Christian), and I am not "bombarded
with religious propaganda" at all. If you live in this country too and feel
yourself to be so "bombarded," you must be reacting with great hostility to
something that I haven't noticed and/or hasn't bothered me at all, and that
something for you is Christian, is it not? If that doesn't show "antipathy
towards Christians" you must have some impossible benchmark for antipathy.

wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:29:09 -0700, "PTravel"
wrote:


The Bill of Rights reiterates those powers that the government specifically
does NOT possess. Among them, as stated in the First Amendment, is the
power to establish religion.

I've been trying to track down the source of something I once
heard. One of the founding fathers is said to have been opposed to
adding the Bill of Rights because, in his words (more or less), "In
two hundred years, some fool will declare that any right not
enumerated here is forbidden".

Woukd you have an idea if this is true and, if so, who might
have said it?

Sorry for the delay in responding.

I've not heard the quote and can't say whether it is true or not. My
familiarity with the Constitution is limited solely to practicing
intellectul property law in this country, which means I rarely, if
ever, have occassion to reference extrinsic sources for Constitutional
construction. If I'm on Lexis later, I'll run a quick search, just in
case it was in some opinion somewhere, but, frankly, I'd be surprised.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:53:23 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

No, because the government hasn't had any wish or need to quarter
troops in private homes for about 200 years. The Third Amendment is
about as relevant today as a buggy whip.

You didn't live on the west coast during WWII, did you? Oops, you're
Harrington, so you can't se this plonkee's postings.


For the benefit of the rest of you:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

Now he can see it, unless he's plonked me too, and I've seen no evidence
of that.

ahem WW II was a time of war.


The Third Amendment specifically provides for that exception:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.

Now I'll grant you I never heard of that Mt. View, CA episode before. But if
you have to go back 60 years or so to find a case in wartime which *might*
have resulted in a violation of the Third Amendment (or might not, depending
on what the home owners' wishes were in the matter and/or whether it was
done "in a manner . . . prescribed by law"), that is not much of a
demonstration of the importance of the Amendment.



It remains a demonstration. Plenty of laws are on the books
which haven't been enforced in years. The last time the "fighting
words" defense prevailed in court was in 1949.

So you can't ignore me after all. Figures -- you're just
another jerk who plonks, but not really. I demand that you re-plonk
me, including echoes of what I say that show up in others' postings.
Or just admit publicly that you can't resist reading what I post.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:22:50 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
But if you have to go back 60 years or so to find a case in
wartime which *might* have resulted in a violation of the Third
Amendment ... that is not much of a demonstration of the
importance of the Amendment.

If you have to go back more than 200 years to find abuses, it
would seem the significant difference occurred approximately 200
years ago.

_Obviously_ the reason we do not suffer those abuses is because
it was written into our Constitution, and (at least to the
degree that we have not yet violated that particular clause) our
Constitution has indeed been effective.

That's like saying the fact that there are no problems with roaming
rhinoceroses here in my apartment house is proof that the sign on my door
prohibiting roaming rhinoceroses "has indeed been effective."

The Amendment is there because the British practice of forcing colonists to
accept the quartering of soldiers in their homes had been common and was
extremely onerous, and a guarantee against the new government doing the same
thing was wanted. But even the Amendment makes allowance for the possibility
that in time of war it might be necessary to do so. Except for the extremely
unusual and obscure case it hasn't been, even in wartime.



If in fact there were any significant number of abuses in the
past 60 years, don't you think that would be proof positive that
the Constitution was *not* significant in eliminating said
abuses?

About as significant as my roaming rhinoceroses example.

Which you hereby admit was just another of your bull****
arguments.


The unfortunate fact is that the Bill of Rights is violated regularly by
government at all levels, and government at all levels gets away with those
violations. The Second Amendment is probably the most prominent example of
this, but the Tenth Amendment has been thoroughly undermined as well.

Hasn't it occurred to you that the many, many First Amendment cases brought
before the courts proves that Amendment has *not* prevented abuses of that
right?

There are no Third Amendment cases because that protection is simply a
non-issue.

Neil

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:10:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

The unfortunate fact is that the Bill of Rights is violated regularly
by government at all levels, and government at all levels gets away
with those violations. The Second Amendment is probably the most
prominent example of this,

I'd say that the first amendment is the most prominent example. I agree
that there have been second-amendment violations, though.

but the Tenth Amendment has been thoroughly undermined as well.

Not really, well not until the Bush administration started to undermine
it.

GUFFAW!

Then show me where the Constituton provides for the federal government to
prevent property owners from developing their own property, on the grounds
that doing so might make some "protected species" snail or slug too nervous
to reproduce. Or to prevent lumbering for similar reasons.

That nonsense was going on (and steadily increasing) since long before the
Bush administration. Scores of other examples too, all since long before the
Bush administration. By and large, the work of leftist-"liberal" loonies,
the very people who, like you, hate conservatives in general and Bush in
particular.


You ****ing moron -- why do you have to descend to the "hate"
stuff every timne you get your ass whipped?

Apparently you "hate" losing the argument.

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
But if you have to go back 60 years or so to find a case in
wartime which *might* have resulted in a violation of the Third
Amendment ... that is not much of a demonstration of the
importance of the Amendment.

If you have to go back more than 200 years to find abuses, it
would seem the significant difference occurred approximately 200
years ago.

_Obviously_ the reason we do not suffer those abuses is because
it was written into our Constitution, and (at least to the
degree that we have not yet violated that particular clause) our
Constitution has indeed been effective.

That's like saying the fact that there are no problems with roaming
rhinoceroses here in my apartment house is proof that the sign on my door
prohibiting roaming rhinoceroses "has indeed been effective."

Your analogy is so trivially *wrong* as to be just silly. There
never were rhinos in your apartment, but there clearly was
a problem with government quartering soldiers in homes.

Not since the colonies became the United States.

Strange timing eh? That just happens to be... when the
Constitution was written. Coincidental, or causation?

Can't you get *anything* even half right?

The Amendment is there because the British practice of forcing colonists
to
accept the quartering of soldiers in their homes had been common and was
extremely onerous, and a guarantee against the new government doing the
same
thing was wanted.

Exactly. There were "rhinos"... and now there are none.

With or without the Third Amendment. Are you really afraid that if the
Amendment were repealed today, the Army would start billeting troops in
private homes tomorrow (or any other time)? It's completely a non-issue.

It is a non-issue *only* because of the Third Amendment.

Yes, if it were repealed we would *immediately* have troops
billeting in private homes.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

The unfortunate fact is that the Bill of Rights is violated regularly
by government at all levels, and government at all levels gets away
with those violations. The Second Amendment is probably the most
prominent example of this,

I'd say that the first amendment is the most prominent example. I agree
that there have been second-amendment violations, though.

but the Tenth Amendment has been thoroughly undermined as well.

Not really, well not until the Bush administration started to undermine
it.

GUFFAW!

Then show me where the Constituton provides for the federal government to
prevent property owners from developing their own property, on the grounds
that doing so might make some "protected species" snail or slug too nervous
to reproduce. Or to prevent lumbering for similar reasons.

Show us where the Constitution protects the "King in his castle" concept
of "Private Property" in the destruction of everyone's environment by
property "owners"?

That nonsense was going on (and steadily increasing) since long before the
Bush administration. Scores of other examples too, all since long before the
Bush administration. By and large, the work of leftist-"liberal" loonies,
the very people who, like you, hate conservatives in general and Bush in
particular.

Ever the ultimate "conservative", you insist on *simple*
solutions to every problem, no matter how complex the situation,
and without regard to how ineffective the "solution" might
actually be.

You are discussing Property Law above; but even though US
Property Law is extremely crude, you complain about the
complexity of even minor evolution towards something
sophisticated enough to be functional. What has been "going on
(and steadily increasing)" is the advent of what is currently
called "Environmental Law" as it becomes more developed and
converges with our existing Property Law concepts.

It is very interesting to compare the derivations of those
concepts, because historically US Property Law is very much the
product of Western culture itself, and is based on English
Common Law, while Environmental Law in America is thousands of
years old! Almost every, though not quite all, Native American
culture had existing sophisticated systems of Property Law
based on what we are now calling Environmental Law long before
English Common Law came to America.

At the current rate of convergence, the US in perhaps 200 to 500
years might catch up to where Americans were 2500 years ago...
and of course the need to make it simple enough that a
"conservative" will believe they understand it, is the reason it
takes so long.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:02:55 -0900, Floyd Davidson wrote:

With or without the Third Amendment. Are you really afraid that if the
Amendment were repealed today, the Army would start billeting troops in
private homes tomorrow (or any other time)? It's completely a non-issue.

It is a non-issue *only* because of the Third Amendment.

Yes, if it were repealed we would *immediately* have troops
billeting in private homes.

Do you know what the situation is in Iraq? I believe I heard in
part of a radio report more than a week ago that the way their
Constitution (unless I'm confusing it with something else) does
allow troops to occupy private homes.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:48:48 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Nikon User" wrote in message
wrote:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

However, the Third Amendment does grant the government to pass a law
allowing such quartering in time of war.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law."

Oh, and although the third amendment was the focus of only one case, it
has been cited in passing in other cases:

"The Third Amendment has been cited in passing in other cases, most
notably opinions arguing that there is a constitutional right to
privacy, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very
left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
4th Amendment

Which makes no mention of any "right to marital privacy."



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

And you think that means what?

Exctkly what it says -- just because a right is not enumerated
here, it does not argue that the ruight does not exist. It sets a
floor on rights, not a ceiling.

Please take a reading comprehension class and try to get a
passing grade.





I always wonder at supposedly conservative people arguing on favor of
a fascist state where the government is free to impose any number of
dictates upon people.

Leftist-"liberals" seem to have this strange love for the word "fascist,"
which they routinely apply to anyone and everyone who thinks the
Constitution means exactly what it says, no more and no less.

Rightist fascists love to attribute "hate" to anyone holding a
diffrent opinion.

Thus they
believe things are "constitutional" which are not even hinted at in the
document, but refuse to accept that "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed" is valid even though that is exactly what
the Constitution says.

In a 1935 speech, Adolf Hitler said that Germany's new gun control laws
would be a model that the world would follow. Leftist-"liberals" today agree
with him whole-heartedly, and call those who *disagree* "fascists." Isn't
that odd?

Neil


But you'll never see this unless your magic plonker fails.
Again.