|
Stamp price hike part of Postal Service plan to cut losses
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 09:21 AM (1,664 Views)
|
|
Jim Miller
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:01 PM
Post #21
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:58 PM
- Jim Miller
- Feb 19 2012, 09:56 PM
You don't think the private sector would hire those employees when they started to deliver the mail?
So, now, miller wants to disregard the constitution because he doesn't like the postal service. What a hypocrite! I'm a hypocrite because you just don't get it. Braha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:18 PM
Post #22
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:45 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 09:40 PM
So government should follow the Constitution now!?
The government does follow the constitution except when you or others happen to disagree. The solution for you is to file a lawsuit, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not it's constitutional. That's how we do it. I don't think that's the procedure for amending the Constitution.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:20 PM
Post #23
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:18 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:45 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 09:40 PM
So government should follow the Constitution now!?
The government does follow the constitution except when you or others happen to disagree. The solution for you is to file a lawsuit, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not it's constitutional. That's how we do it.
I don't think that's the procedure for amending the Constitution. I'm not talking about amending, I'm talking about interpreting. If you amend it, you've changed it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:23 PM
Post #24
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 10:20 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:18 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:45 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 09:40 PM
So government should follow the Constitution now!?
The government does follow the constitution except when you or others happen to disagree. The solution for you is to file a lawsuit, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not it's constitutional. That's how we do it.
I don't think that's the procedure for amending the Constitution.
I'm not talking about amending, I'm talking about interpreting. If you amend it, you've changed it. That's part of the Constitution, to amend it.
Changing it by interpretation makes it a living document and nothing to base the foundation of law on.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:26 PM
Post #25
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:23 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 10:20 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:18 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:45 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 09:40 PM
So government should follow the Constitution now!?
The government does follow the constitution except when you or others happen to disagree. The solution for you is to file a lawsuit, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not it's constitutional. That's how we do it.
I don't think that's the procedure for amending the Constitution.
I'm not talking about amending, I'm talking about interpreting. If you amend it, you've changed it.
That's part of the Constitution, to amend it. Changing it by interpretation makes it a living document and nothing to base the foundation of law on. I didn't suggest it be changed by interpretation, just that it has to be interpreted by someone. That someone is the SC.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:31 PM
Post #26
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 10:26 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:23 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 10:20 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:18 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:45 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 09:40 PM
So government should follow the Constitution now!?
The government does follow the constitution except when you or others happen to disagree. The solution for you is to file a lawsuit, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not it's constitutional. That's how we do it.
I don't think that's the procedure for amending the Constitution.
I'm not talking about amending, I'm talking about interpreting. If you amend it, you've changed it.
That's part of the Constitution, to amend it. Changing it by interpretation makes it a living document and nothing to base the foundation of law on.
I didn't suggest it be changed by interpretation, just that it has to be interpreted by someone. That someone is the SC. Their Constitutional powers don't include changing the Constitution or its meaning.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:33 PM
Post #27
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:31 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 10:26 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:23 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 10:20 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:18 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 19 2012, 09:45 PM
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 09:40 PM
So government should follow the Constitution now!?
The government does follow the constitution except when you or others happen to disagree. The solution for you is to file a lawsuit, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not it's constitutional. That's how we do it.
I don't think that's the procedure for amending the Constitution.
I'm not talking about amending, I'm talking about interpreting. If you amend it, you've changed it.
That's part of the Constitution, to amend it. Changing it by interpretation makes it a living document and nothing to base the foundation of law on.
I didn't suggest it be changed by interpretation, just that it has to be interpreted by someone. That someone is the SC.
Their Constitutional powers don't include changing the Constitution or its meaning. Didn't say it did. The SC, however, is tasked with interpreting it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 19 2012, 10:46 PM
Post #28
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
I think then you, and perhaps some of them, misinterpret interpret.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 19 2012, 11:10 PM
Post #29
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 19 2012, 10:46 PM
I think then you, and perhaps some of them, misinterpret interpret. I see, you are just smarter than everybody else. Tell us what your constitution interpreting credentials are.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jim Miller
|
Feb 19 2012, 11:11 PM
Post #30
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
Neal, you are way out of your league. The problem is you don't think so. Hence you constantly come off as the fool.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|