Tyson foods caves to Muslims

[jimpeel]

it's clear to me exactly what was meant by it, jim.

by the letter of it and by the obvious context.

if you read something published in 1944 referring to "the allies" you would hardly insist that the US, england, et cetera be spelled out one by one. in context, you know exactly what it refers to.

i'll be happy to recommend a good book on the enlightenment's effect on thinking in early 'merica if you're still struggling here.

Yes, it is clear by today's standards.

However ...

Read Gato's sig line and then consider this:

The Founders had come from under an oppressive monarchy which they had rejected all of its tenets. They rebeled not only against the Crown but against what the Crown represented including the leadership of the church by the Crown.

At the time of the founding the Constitution and BoR meant a much different thing than what is "interpreted" today. Read the Constitution and BoR and analyze what was written with what is done today.

• Do you think that the founders would have found the searches of today "reasonable" by their standards then?
  
• Do you think what they really meant by "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law," meant that a crime committed in OKC should be tried in Denver, CO?
  
• Do you think that when they wrote "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." that they meant that blank John Doe warrants should be lawful?
  
• Do you think that when they wrote "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" that they meant that trials at the local, state, and federal level for the same crime were okay?
  
• Do you think that when they wrote " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" that they meant seizure and forfeiture laws were okay?
  
• Do you think that when they wrote "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." that the decision under Keohe (sp?) would be a correct interpretation of what they meant?

The Founders today would be rabble rousing for people to pick up their firearms and march on city hall for some of the things that the government does today. Of course, by toiday's standards they would be considered urban terrorists and criminals and shot down by the local SWAT team serving a "no-knock" warrant in the middle of the night.

 

[2minkey]

whatever jim.

obviously things are different now. certainly thomas jefferson did not anticipate many of the things and legal situations we have today. a big "no shit, sherlock" on that one, eh?

i know what they wrote. and i have a pretty good understanding of the intellectual climate that they wrote in. i'm done with this.

 

[Gonz]

um, pretty sure church-state separation goes 'lil deeper than that jim. right.

No, it was a ruling make up from, scratch. The most forgotten words of the 1st are allowing the free exercise thereof. That doesn't sound like you can't put a manger scene on the public square.

If teh government pays fort it, there may be an issue. If Bob & his wife wanna pay for it,. wtf is it hurting?

 

[Gonz]

obviously things are different now..

So what? The Constitution is clear & concise. The rules are spelled out as to what power WE grant the government. The government grants us no right, it accepts that we have them-period.

Stupid people & well meaning folks who believe that thigs are different are why we are where we are today. There is a way to change the system. Change the Constitution. It is spelled out how that mayu be done.

 

[2minkey]

So what? The Constitution is clear & concise. The rules are spelled out as to what power WE grant the government. The government grants us no right, it accepts that we have them-period.

Stupid people & well meaning folks who believe that thigs are different are why we are where we are today. There is a way to change the system. Change the Constitution. It is spelled out how that mayu be done.

dude, you're taking "things have changed" in a completely different direction. take another look at the post and how i used it.

i think we're both arguing original intent in this instance.

 

[jimpeel]

dude, you're taking "things have changed" in a completely different direction. take another look at the post and how i used it.

i think we're both arguing original intent in this instance.

Yet you believe that the original intent was as the court ruled in 1962 in Engel v Vitale.

 

[Gonz]

dude, you're taking "things have changed" in a completely different direction. take another look at the post and how i used it.

i think we're both arguing original intent in this instance.

Alright, fine, my mistake.

 

[2minkey]

Yet you believe that the original intent was as the court ruled in 1962 in Engel v Vitale.

if that happens to match up with what i believe otherwise as original intent, okay.

stop trying to be clever, squirtypants. it's pretty clear where my opinion on this matter springs from.