-
some methods a army can aquire funds include service fees, bonds, donations, stock, borrowing, mining, directing revenue from other areas of government services. selling weapons and technology. if if want to go taxes= money control=gun control, sure. then of course any coercive force is property control and guns are property so gun control would be
-
if people are just going to take the point of view of the deptor, why pay back a loan at all? surely that helps someone if they just get free money. that someone should lose wealth by lending does not seem reasonable. a fee can be much higher than a interest payment, so the only way to counter that is to ask the lender to not charge anything at all
-
so a video on constitutional interpretation is to show me how constitutional interpretation is not relevant?
-
because government does not involve law.
-
i know what the words mean, but do you think everyone sees the same thing as cruel and unusual? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment it says there were court decisions that the death penalty ok, but denationalization not ok. i'd call incarceration cruel punishment, but that is not how the courts have played
-
life or death or incarceration can depend on the judgement of judges and jury, moreso than the peice of paper. the 3rd amendment seems more black and white than the 8th amendment. words have meaning, but words like "excessive" are still subject to a judgement call. it seems more easy to tell that a soldier is quartered in a house without the
-
Congratulations. That's easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say. how is that stupid? there are different interpretations of the constition are there not? because all supreme court decisions are 9/0 or 0/9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation
-
i don't think a standing army is gun control. a standing army does not regulation to take away the ability to own arms. regulation on arms is a form of gun control.
-
not sure what it means to violate the constitution. it's not like the constition is clear and objective and not open to interpretation. we have members of each branch that can't agree on what law is or what is torture. a lot of supreme court decisions are 5/4 or 4/5. we have ron paul say something is torture that violates usa and international
-
i think the difference between police and military is where the orders come from and the procedure for it to be lawful and constitutional, but i think both military and police can fire lawfully and constitionaly on usa citizens given correct procedure. if someone thinks defending the constitution is not worth a oath, the person should not seek such