Re: copper the new oil?

On May 5, 5:58 am, Jim Yanik <jya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:MPG.228787ed9de9b6f9989bb2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





In article <Xns9A93F26BB50F8jyanikkua...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
jya...@xxxxxxxxx says...
krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:MPG.2286187cea89e573989ba8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <MPG.2285d51e3803261598a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
nospam.k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
In article <pan.2008.05.02.19.20.14.148...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
n...@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 05:58:19 -0700, JosephKK wrote:

You are hallucinating again.  We the people have shitted away
most of what the Constitution had granted.

The Constitution DOES NOT "grant" anything. You are born with all
of the rights there are - you know, "endowed by their creator..."?

What the Constitution is _supposed_ to do is grant limited powers
to the government, at the consent of the people, and PROTECT the
natural rights that we all have. THAT's the part that's getting
raped.

Thanks,
Rich

Very good point you've made there. But the Amendments do try to
enumerate the rights some of us hold.

Actually, they don't (try to).  Other than the thirteenth amendment,  
their purpose is to explicitly limit the federal government (the
states less so).

IMO,once a territory joins the United States,they agree to abide by the
Constitution;ALL of it,not just the parts they like.

Wasn't my point.  Much of the Constitution is explicitly a
limitation on the FEDERAL government not state governments (e.g.
"Congress shall pass no law"),  though the federal government has
pretty much reversed the roles.

but the first ten amendments protect BASIC rights that not even the states
should be infringing.

That was most certainly _not_ true. Application of the Bill of Rights
to state law is through the Incorporation Doctrine. (Through the
14th.) Bull***, but it happened. Wrong, but current reality.
.