Curiosity

[janine]

Naw... that long ago, given who was allowed to vote...  maybe Catholic.  Probably some sort of Congregational church.  Who knows?

Seekr, you are probably the one other poster I agree and disagree with the most, simultaneously!

[janine]

That's assuming Hispanics and Irish immigrants would have been allowed to vote.  If it went by land ownershipin California, I assume the descendants of Spain would have had the vote.

[Booty]

Wow!!   Now I am happy!! I have another bone to chew on!! thanks Old Guy, you are anything but boring!!  Sorry Kat, but I am a sponge for your history!

Paddy, thank you for the kind words, but I realy feel the novice in your history. I believe one reason it fascinates me is because you managed to do very quickly whwt we still struggle with. Of course you did have a distinct advantage of distance.

Ark, the entire flavour of the constitutional process and the federalist / anti-federalist papers screams to me of the intent of the founders to maintain a confederation of sovereign states, thus I firmly believe Lincoln's actions to be wrong.

Three interesting points if Kat will allow me?

First, why the 17th amendment? I believe that one amendment damaged states rights as much if not more than Lincoln.

And second, doesn't Bush vs Palm Beach County open up a conundrum concerning the popular vote for President and Vice President?  I know I am the dreamer, (It's in me blood it is!!), but is it not legally possible based on your constitution as it currently is interpreted for a state to say, we will not be holding a popular vote for President, Vice President. We, the State government, will select and send the electors.  

And third, why is not your Vice President the man who receives the second most votes?

And A Bonus Point Because I am Irish and Saint Paddy's Day? Why do you yanks seem to still have a bit of Royal Worship? I would think with your history you would firmly reject the concept?

Ach Kat, isn't it the curse to have an enquiring mind?

Now I am off to study Barron vs Baltimore, you all may not see me for a time!!  Thanks again!!

[KatC]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Ach Kat, isn't it the curse to have an enquiring mind?
[/quote]

Curse? mmmm...haven't figured out whether it would be a curse or blessing but either way...It sure is handy at times.  Especially when you need those facts to make your point. *GGLS*...Like today and my point for the lone star state, Tejas (texas for those that dont' know).  We are the only state that can claim independce and function as a seperate nation should an event come that we would need to do so.
(not saying it would be right or wrong..just saying that it is a fact)  Thats a rather interesting study as well.  The whole battles against Mexico and how we won our independence.  Wow...what would I do without history...*S*...


Kathie  

Have a great night and saturday everyone...I get to go see My dad...and mom..and sister...and niece..and bro-in-law (maybe) YAY...*S*
:clap:

[marc]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Booty,
As to the fascination with royalty I would gather that our independence happened so long ago that we have let bygones be bygones.  I myself have many English ancestors and my wife as well.  I have an interest in royalty because I am a pomp and circumstance, tradition maniac.
Paddy[/quote]
Having lived in Australia during Charles & Diana's wedding and Prince William's birth, I would say What American fascination with royalty? :saint:

[pdwblw]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I guess the placing of royals, kennedys, movie stars etc up on a pedestal is an indication that we need someone to look up to, or "worship".  Pity we can't just settle for God. [/quote]
I don't worship royalty I just have an interest in history and the tradition of the monarchy.
Patrick

[marc]

They help the tourist trade, I imagine.  Living in an area that was at one time mostly owned by George Washington, I wonder how things would differ if we had royalty here.  Castles on the Kanawha, Royal Polo Grounds on the Ohio. . . .

[Renee]

LOLOLOLOL Oh Charlie that is tooo cute!

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:

Renee

[seekr]

I agree with Booty's first post. We really have become a nation full of arrogance and lacking the love we should be showing our neighbor. This is what brings God's judgment upon a nation. We may say we are a Christian nation or were a Christian nation, but just as with God's people in the book of Amos...He hates our religious feasts. That doesn't mean He holds us all in contempt, but that as an overall nation we do not serve Him. God then sends in our enemies, to bring justice. Is.10:1-4

In that article they were debating, about homosexuality, by Jeremy Reynolds...what stood out for me was this--

"It is this core set of beliefs that undergirds the success of every faith- based ministry in America. The needy men, women, and families who crowd into rescue missions nationwide know that drugs, alcohol, illicit sex, lying, and other life controlling behaviors have helped them become homeless."

This is the attitude of a lot of people. Why are there people who are homeless? And this is from a man supposedly in this ministry. He should not be, as he is looking down on them with arrogance. The reason we have more people homeless, and even with some of the problems he mentioned, is because the church is not doing their job by sharing everything with them. These problems come about because people give up and become discouraged and lose hope. Then nothing matters anymore and the church may lend a hand, after the fact, but the "equality" spoken in scripture is never done. Look around and see what is happening. Where is the church Christ paid for? He freed us from our debt, so why do we hold others to theirs? I will not quit shouting this. May we truly turn back to God by loving our neighbor.

seekr

[KatC]

I say KJV becuase it was (or something similar) is what they had back then.  The NIV, NLB, ASB, and may others are all fairly recent translations.  Anyone taken a look at the NLB, ItS rather Blunt on everything.  Instead of they "laid" together, it was They had sex...Anyways...I thought it was rather interesting.  But the point is they are all rather new translations of the Greek Language, and everything.  Thats why I said the KJV.  But in all actuality I like the NIV the best.

Also, It is very difficult to keep a child from silent praying.  Bible Studies in the school Library was not kept from us. though I'm sure had there been an athiest there that was upset about us doing that, we probably would have been sued for it.  I'm blessed in the fact that I did go to a school in which Christianity was held as a good thing and Not a violation of law.  

Anyone listen to President Bush's news conferance this evening.  I was curious, I only got to hear the last 15 min or so, so I didn't really get to hear much?

Kathie.

oh...Little tidbit of info.  I wouldn't call this useless but it is interesting.  There was a lawsuit last summer/fall with a school-district up North i believe.  The subject?  They girl was silently praying to God before eating lunch, an athiest kid saw it told his parents and his parents sued saying that it violated his kids beliefs.  She was silent praying.  I watch CNN alot....*S*


:zzzz:

[marc]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The 17th Amendment took the selection of Senators from the state legislature and gave it to the rabble (for the American crowd here who is unlikely to know what the 17th was).

It took less than a year for the 17th to be ratified by 36 states. At the time it was proposed, 29 states had adopted a non-binding vote system where the people voted for candidates and the legislature merely ratified their selection as a formality. In the remaining states the selection system was being marred by corruption and influence peddling as well as on occasion deadlocks where no candidate was selected during protacted bargaining and the state government ground to a stop as the fight drug on.


Bush v. Palm Beach County doesn't open the conundrum, it has always existed. The states may select electors in any manner they wish. I know some have toyed with the idea of have assigning two elector spots to the candidate who carried the state and awarding one from each Congressional district.[/quote]

I'm a little lost.  Okay, the 17th amendment provides for popular election of Senators.  What does this have to do with Presidential electors?

[marc]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc, the Bush v. Palm reference was responding to a seperate question from Booty and had nothing to do with the 17th Amendment.

The quirk of the Civil War is that the US Constitution says a state cannot enter into a confederacy with other states and cannot enter into a compact with other states without the consent of Congress. The act of doing so was invalid. It was the position of the Federal government that there was no such thing as seccession and the action was invalid, yet after the war the government essentially validated the actions by requiring the confederate states to be re-admitted to the Union. I thought that a condition on Virginia was that they concede West Viriginia was lawfully admitted.
[/quote]

That clears that up, then.  I read from one to the other, and became more than a little confused.

You may be right about the condition of Virginia's re-entry.  I haven't heard this stated before, and have only seen the Supreme Court decision (which I do not have in front of me) concerning the three western counties referenced.  You'll have to excuse me on this one; ever since I discovered that some Virginians claim we aren't a legal state, I tweak them as often as possible.  One moden-day confederate responded to me that Judicial Review itself was extra-constitutional, and that the Constitution had been imporperly interpreted ever since Marshall.

btw, in another post I referenced the Texas Ordinance of Seccession as well as the Confederate Constitution on this subject.    Here's the reference from the Texas Ordinance:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. [/quote]