Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Stamp price hike part of Postal Service plan to cut losses
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 09:21 AM (1,664 Views)
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I think then you, and perhaps some of them, misinterpret interpret.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neal, you are way out of your league. The problem is you don't think so. Hence you constantly come off as the fool.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis