Ted/Mark, most of the left looks only at the "rights" (some very much invented) provided by our Constitution (and only some of those, considering their antipithy towards the Second Amendment).  The left pretty much ignores anything else.  As long as the government has no control over people's sex lives, control of their economic lives can be just about total as far as the left is concerned.

The whole comcept of "federalism" is considered entirely outmoded to the left, which feels that state and local governments should pretty much be mere lower level appendages of the federal government, responsible to it.  The past 70 years have already seen the federal government assume roles that would have been absolutely UNTHINKABLE to those who wrote our Constitution - and doing so without, in most cases, the Constitution being formally amended.

Perhaps in the distant (thanks to George W. Bush, it will be relatifvely far distant) future, the Supreme Court may eventually simply acquise in a Democrat congress wiping away the last vestages of federalism on the grounds that the changing nature of our society has evolved to the point that such quaint and outmoded Constitutional limitations are simply no longer valid.

MWL

MWL,

I suppose I am blind to the notion of power vested into the hands of politicians. I don't believe anyone born in the last 20 years has any notion of true freedom, and the further we go down this road, the more true "rights" we give up to the federal government. Young people in our current school system are like frogs being boiled. They simply don't know and may never know.  

Mark 

Mark49:

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

1) funding of abstinence only education over comprehensive sex education

2) elimination of women's right to choose

3) forbidding same sex marriage

4) stopping ALL new lines of stem cell research 

In times past that passion to control was violently against all birth control and abortion under any and all circumstances (no exceptions) and even decreed what sexual acts couldn't be privately performed by consenting adults.

Myra 

MyraL:

Mark49:

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

That nasty desire to control was for:

1) funding of abstinence only education over comprehensive sex education

2) elimination of women's right to choose

3) forbidding same sex marriage

4) stopping ALL new lines of stem cell research 

In times past that passion to control was violently against all birth control and abortion under any and all circumstances (no exceptions) and even decreed what sexual acts couldn't be privately performed by consenting adults.

Myra 

It's an insult on the Founders, the constitution, and our heritage to mention same sex marriage as a right or that somehow the mean old Republicans have violated the constitution by prohibiting same sex marriages. Look around, it's the overwhelming, vast majority of Dems, Independents, and Republicans who are voting against same sex marriages.

Don't be factitious. 

As far as abortions, that's a state matter, as the constitution leaves everything outside of the ascribed powers of the Feds in the hands of the people and the states. 

As far as abstinence, I agree, it's not the Feds business, it is, however the power of your state to decide what to teach and how to teach. The Feds have overstepped their powers with "No Child Left Behind", and indeed, even having a Department of Education. 

And stem cells? Don't make me laugh. Where in the constitution does it authorize the Feds to do medical research? Section and article, please.

I anxiously wait your response. 

Mark, from Article One, Section Eight:

[Congress shall have the power ]  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This combines with the"necessary and proper" clause. 

FYI, I wrote about control freaks, not Constitutional authorization or political party. Control freaks don't care what level of government, they only want control: witness the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Myra 

The government we have now should be taken out behind the BARN and shot for dis-obeying the US Constitution.

Like I said, it's like frogs being boiled.

Mark 

EagleTed:

MyraL:

Mark49:

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

That nasty desire to control was for:

1) funding of abstinence only education over comprehensive sex education

2) elimination of women's right to choose

3) forbidding same sex marriage

4) stopping ALL new lines of stem cell research 

In times past that passion to control was violently against all birth control and abortion under any and all circumstances (no exceptions) and even decreed what sexual acts couldn't be privately performed by consenting adults.

Myra 

It's an insult on the Founders, the constitution, and our heritage to mention same sex marriage as a right or that somehow the mean old Republicans have violated the constitution by prohibiting same sex marriages. Look around, it's the overwhelming, vast majority of Dems, Independents, and Republicans who are voting against same sex marriages.

Don't be factitious. 

As far as abortions, that's a state matter, as the constitution leaves everything outside of the ascribed powers of the Feds in the hands of the people and the states. 

As far as abstinence, I agree, it's not the Feds business, it is, however the power of your state to decide what to teach and how to teach. The Feds have overstepped their powers with "No Child Left Behind", and indeed, even having a Department of Education. 

And stem cells? Don't make me laugh. Where in the constitution does it authorize the Feds to do medical research? Section and article, please.

I anxiously wait your response. 

 2) elimination of women's right to choose

and other liberal fiction.

I personally believe that a woman should be able to choose, BUT I do not find that right in law.  

"I personally believe that a woman should be able to choose, BUT I do not find that right in law"

You can't find it in the law, because a law was never passed. It was never debated in the Legislature and voted on. It is not in the Constitution, unless of course you go through a tortuous path to get there, as the Court did. Stem cell research is not illegal, and it is not in the Constitution that we have to spend the taxpayers money on it. Our personal beliefs have no place in interpreting what the Constitution says. If a document can mean anything you want it to mean, it is a meaningless document.

Mark 

MyraL:

Mark, from Article One, Section Eight:

[Congress shall have the power ]  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This combines with the"necessary and proper" clause. 

FYI, I wrote about control freaks, not Constitutional authorization or political party. Control freaks don't care what level of government, they only want control: witness the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Myra 

LOL I assume this is in response to my post.

My name is Ted, my son's middle name is Earl. I do have a cousin named Mark. I don't think he is Mark49, however, as he's only 39 or so.

Patent and copyright protection has nothing to do with federal research, they are granted for private research. Why is that so hard to understand?

BTW, I give you credit for at least looking at the constitution to justify your opinion of what the constitution should say. Most on your side of the aisle never even crack it open.