[QUOTE=Charleylake]Sorry, but again, I paraphrase Madison: “I cannot lay my finger upon that clause in the Constitution that authorizes Congress (to establish regulations that prescribe the dimensions and elevation of the counters and sinks in the kitchens of a businesse.)’ Can you? And don’t give me the “general welfare” crap. Do you actually believe that Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, etc. would have imagined in their wildest dreams that Congress would stoop to the level of prescribing the heighth and dimensions of counters and sinks? I sure as hell don’t!

I hope you understand that I agree with you.

But now that you mentioned it, as far as Jefferson is concerned did Monticello meet the requirements as set forth in the ADA?

Congress does what it wants, it’s only unconstitution whenever the people demand congress do what congress doesn’t want to do something.

[QUOTE=Avman]I hope you understand that I agree with you.

But now that you mentioned it, as far as Jefferson is concerned did Monticello meet the requirements as set forth in the ADA?

Congress does what it wants, it’s only unconstitution whenever the people demand congress do what congress doesn’t want to do something.

My, but it is fun to wind you guys up! Tell me, oh consitutional solons, where was the consitutional authority for Wahsington’s Neutrality Proclamations? Where in the consitution did it say that Jefferson could buy new territory and settle it? And where (almost hate to mention this one) did Lincoln find consitutional authority to prevent states from seceding, or to suspend habeus corpus? Don’t get me wrong - I approve of most if these actions. But none are spelled out specifically in the consitution.

But again, you are only concerned about consitutional issues if they in any way cause previously disadvantaged groups to have a level playing field (literally, in this case). Government perks for big corporations are no problem - I particularly remember you all arguing in favor of no-bid contracts for Haliburton. Hey, I wonder where that exective perogotive is mandated in the constitution?

[QUOTE=Rincewind]My, but it is fun to wind you guys up! Tell me, oh consitutional solons, where was the consitutional authority for Wahsington’s Neutrality Proclamations? Where in the consitution did it say that Jefferson could buy new territory and settle it? And where (almost hate to mention this one) did Lincoln find consitutional authority to prevent states from seceding, or to suspend habeus corpus? Don’t get me wrong - I approve of most if these actions. But none are spelled out specifically in the consitution.

But again, you are only concerned about consitutional issues if they in any way cause previously disadvantaged groups to have a level playing field (literally, in this case). Government perks for big corporations are no problem - I particularly remember you all arguing in favor of no-bid contracts for Haliburton. Hey, I wonder where that exective perogotive is mandated in the constitution?

Hmmm, You must have had a different history teacher than I did. My history differs from your history in that Lincoln was not able to prevent the southern states from seceeding. My understanding is that they did seceed and became the Confederate States of America and was its own individual country. I also understand that the civil war began after the states seceeded and began at Fort Sumpter. My understanding of history also includes that at the end of the civil war the states were admitted back into the union as long as they accepted conditions. In the end, Lincoln did not prevent the southern states from seceeding.

Am I misunderstanding history? Did Lincoln prevent the Southern States from seceeding, or were you just educated in Louisana?

As for remembering so well that I argued for no-bid contrats, I’d like to see the thread where I made a case for it. I do not remember making such a case and I would appreciate it if you would bring it too my attention. But now that you mentioned it, are you opposed to it completely, or were you for it when Clinton did it and opposed to it under the Bush administration?

[QUOTE=Avman]Hmmm, You must have had a different history teacher than I did. My history differs from your history in that Lincoln was not able to prevent the southern states from seceeding.

I see, and which part of the CSA are you currently living in? The southern states did not secede, they attempted to secede. And apropos to the actual thread, the question of secession is not addressed in the Constitution, let alone whether a president can “let them back in” after secession. Nevertheless, thank God that the Confederate states were unsucessful, and Lincoln acted in way that was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]I see, and which part of the CSA are you currently living in? The southern states did not secede, they attempted to secede. And apropos to the actual thread, the question of secession is not addressed in the Constitution, let alone whether a president can “let them back in” after secession. Nevertheless, thank God that the Confederate states were unsucessful, and Lincoln acted in way that was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

He did not prevent them from seceeding, they did seceed. As for it not being in the constitution, you are right, it’s not in the constitution. The consitution does not permit the Federal government from seceeding. What you are referring to can be found in the Bill of Rights, I believe the tenth amendment. That would be states rights, which is what the civil war was originally about. States had the right to run their state as they saw fit.

It was originally intended to be like thirteen individual nations united for its common defense. When they seceeded, the country was without legislatures representing the south because the south was no longer a part of the United States. During the years of the civil wars, when federal laws were passed, they were passed with out the say of the south and did not affect the south until after the civil war.

After the civil war the south rejoined the Union.

Thats the way I read it. The war was about the secession of the southern states. When they lost, they were brought back into the union, albeit as a second class member.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]My, but it is fun to wind you guys up! Tell me, oh consitutional solons, where was the consitutional authority for Wahsington’s Neutrality Proclamations?

Your reference to Washington’s “Neutrality Proclamations” piqued my interest. I am aware of Roosevelt’s during WWII, but I am not familiar with Washington’s. Can you elucidate?

[QUOTE=Charleylake]Your reference to Washington’s “Neutrality Proclamations” piqued my interest. I am aware of Roosevelt’s during WWII, but I am not familiar with Washington’s. Can you elucidate?

Personally, I wasn’t around to complain about past infringements by the government. I don’t know, I’ll check my birth certificate again, but I am quite certain that I wasn’t around in 1784 to rail against Washington’s violation of the constitution… or Jeffersons, or Lincoln.

[QUOTE=Avman]Personally, I wasn’t around to complain about past infringements by the government. I don’t know, I’ll check my birth certificate again, but I am quite certain that I wasn’t around in 1784 to rail against Washington’s violation of the constitution… or Jeffersons, or Lincoln.

YES, but you are here NOW so why not read some of the BUSH administratrion’s violations???

[QUOTE=Mike Foster Sr]YES, but you are here NOW so why not read some of the BUSH administratrion’s violations???

I am concerned, just as I was concerned with the violations by the Clinton administration

[QUOTE=Mike Foster Sr]YES, but you are here NOW so why not read some of the BUSH administratrion’s violations???

Which are?........

Couple things:

The transvestite argument:
Doesn’t work in this context because your argument merely deals with a bathroom issue. Nothing stops a trans from walking into a store and buying things. Without the ADA, many handicapped could not walk into a store or other place of business and get a basic need, and without federal requirements, VERY few stores - especially new ones - would take steps to insure such a clientele (though, post-ADA, it may be different, just as post-civil rights era, it is going to be different on racial matters, but that never required extra construction and percieved extra expenditures).

Is it constitutional? I actually wonder; no, the role of the government is NOT to dictate sink height to private businesses. Is it one of the shortcomings of the Constitution that the government cannot require “equality?” (which is a VERY vague term in and of itself, and has definitely been overapplied).

Does the ADA erode liberties? It’s an interesting case where it liberates some (the disabled) at the required expense of others (the abled), and almost seems a certain type of invasion of personal property rights.

On secession? Depends on who you ask. Was there ever, in reality, a CSA, or did the Southern states remain a part of the USA the entire period?

Well, there were conditions (unconstitutionally) laid upon the Southern states (by Republicans, no less, one of the party’s darker moments) for readmittance to the Union. There WAS a definite division, and there was a loss of constitutional rights for the South for a time.

And yes, I guess I’m “progressive” about the ADA. My thesis has to do with disability advocacy, and it more or less intrigues me. I know that there are definite times where the ADA was carried too far (especially considering the definition of “disabled” at times), but I have come to understand a few things.

Under IDEA (which guarantess education) the disabled are finally getting access to the one great equalizer in our country - education. Under ADA, they can actually enter a workplace for which they can mentally qualify, if not physically, and I know that ANY smart business will undergo the expense of the ADA if they know that a disabled person can produce given accomodations.

Also, it’s likely that sooner or later we’ll all be disabled. That’s part of what we all have to keep in mind in discussing this issue.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]! Tell me, oh consitutional solons, where was the consitutional authority for Wahsington’s Neutrality Proclamations??

Boog. YOu have not supplied me with a reference to “Washington’s Neutrailty Proclamations”?????????????