Ah, yes, follow the LETTER of the Law, and ignore its spirit. Where HAVE I heard that before...?

It's funny, in a sad sory of way, these people who insist on sticking to strict literal interpretations of everything...

a bat is still not a bird, you know.

"Mongo fear change."

Did you ever consider the name "Odala?"

"It's funny, in a sad sory of way, these people who insist on sticking to strict literal interpretations of
everything... "

Really? I'd like to see anyone try and interpret the second and tenth ammendments in such a way as to justify the liberal attacks on them.

As for the rest of your post, I really have no idea what you're talking about.

"a bat is still not a bird" -- a reference to Literal Interpretation. In Deuterotomy, while telling the Israelites what they can and cannot eat, God classifies the bat in with the birds. A strict, literal interpretation (which you claim to favor both with the Constitution and the Bible) MUST lead to the (erroneous, incidentally) conclusion that a bat IS a bird. I mentioned this fact some time ago. You attempted to refute it, but were forced to stray into interpretation to do so.

"Odala" in the Voyager Episode "Distant Origin," Minister Odala was the leading member of the Ministry of Elders of the Voth people. He was the one who categorically rejected the "Distant Origin Theory," because it conflicted with Voth Doctrine. Sound familiar?

And what's wrong with that? I seriously doubt that the ancient Hebrews knew that there was a difference between bats and birds, so their word that we translate as bird probably would have covered that which we call a bat as well. Something more like "flying things that aren't insects", possibly. And I go for strict literalism, unless metaphor is obviously intended. Like Jesus' parables: if His answers were taken literally, most of the gospels would be completely non sequitor, but as metaphor, they work. Conversely, you can take all of Genesis to be true, and it makes perfect sense, so why resort to metaphor?

"He was the one who categorically rejected the "Distant Origin Theory," because it conflicted with Voth Doctrine. Sound familiar?"

The only thing it reminds me of is the mideval Catholic church, who were so rigid in their interpretation and so unwilling to admit that they were wrong that they would sooner kill someone than examine the evidence. I reject Evolution based on the evidence; evidence which you have yet to refute.

Let's put it into perspective, shall we? You have yet to post any evidence that I have not refuted. I have posted evidence that you have not refuted. I'd say that puts me in the lead by quite a bit.

And wasn't Odala female? I just haven't seen that ep in a while.

Ok this doesn't sound like a Republican vs. Democrat this is much older like a Federal Supremicacy vs. States Rights, or a Federalist vs. a Republican (or Democrat, or Republican-Democrat, they changed there names really quickly). So this is a very old agruement much, much older than anyone here (even Baloo ). I can't say I really agree with Omega, his strict interpretation would make it very difficult to do much of anything, anyway the Congress can basically create what laws it needs to govern the nation.

Section 6 clause 18, To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Omega said "What the founding fathers intended is irrelevant. It's what they SAID when they wrote the constitution that matters. The text of the constitution is all that matters, and we have to go by it, not their intentions."

As strange as that originally sounded, that is completely true, we can't go by what the founding fathers intended only by what they wrote down, however that doesn't mean we can interprete what the Constitution means in the current environment that the founding fathers would could never dreamed (of course the past is also a lot like the future, so they could have dreamed of some of it). Anyway the Supreme Court has long ignored the actual thoughts of the founding fathers and would rather support earilier Supreme Courts compared to what the Founding Fathers might have or might not have thought.

All one can judge is deeds and actions, not thoughts.

------------------
Step 1: Become a senior member,
Step 2: ?,
Step 3: Global Domination

In your own words.. it doesn't matter what was intended, just what was written down.

You, sir, are insisting on having your cake and eating it to.

Incidentally, who decides what is "obviously intended" as metaphor? Or is anything that conflicts with what you know to be reality obviously intended to be metaphor by default?

That's a pitiful "easy out," something I'd expect from a J's Witness or one of those other sects that keeps predicting the End and keeps being wrong. "Oh, that's not real.. it was obviously a metaphor..."

Though I'm afraid that joke is probably lost on everyone but Frank.

Now then...you've won, eh Omega? Uh...sure. I thought I could win by using all of those silly arguments and skipping past every point you made. And my achingly short and poorly researched responses were constantly changing the subject.

However, I blame it all on my proximity to Oregon. Oregon is bad, you know.

[HA! Two references in one post. I amaze even (Or perhaps only) myself.]

"Though I'm afraid that joke is probably lost on everyone but Frank."

and me damn your eyes!!

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

More like Conservative vs. Liberal, I think.

"Congress can basically create what laws it needs to govern the nation."

Only within the bounds stated within the constitution, as the clause you referenced pointed out.

And I say again, if you have to change part of the constitution to be valid in todays environment, then don't just reinterpret it, CHANGE IT. There is a process by which it can be done, you know. If the constitution SAID that the federal government could manage a transportation system, I'd have no problem with it.

Shouldn't you change your sig? : )

"In your own words.. it doesn't matter what was intended, just what was written down. "

OK, maybe I should spell it out a little more plainly. "I go for strict literalism, unless metaphor is obviously intended in what was written." Will that do? Basically, metaphor only if it makes no sense in context otherwise.

And I think those sects are funny, too. If someone said that the world was going to end last month in a ball of purple flame caused by an alien being called Lavos, and this makes sense in the context of the rest of their teachings, it's logical to take what they say literally, no?

Sol:

"...you've won, eh Omega?"

I keep being misquoted. I said that I'm winning, not that I've won. Would you care to be more specific as to what "silly arguments" I've used, because none are really coming to mind. And what points did I skip past? Again, none come to mind. Achingly short responses?! Some of my posts were six pages long and took me an hour to write!

How odd, we seem to disagree yet again.

Let's look at some, but not all of the phrases the make up the Constitution shall we?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" How is it intended that they do that? Would a bill by Congress outlawing the movement by trucks of chicken feathers from California to Oregon be Un-Constitutional? How bout one that said you can't fly from New York to Kansas? The Congress has to the power to regulate trade between the states does it not? But then the Constitution does not say anything about airplanes or trucks does it? So it's general vagueness comes in handy for dealing with modernity.

2nd Amendment:
"A well-regulated militia..." What does that mean today? Sounds to me that like it gives right to Congress to, oh say regulate guns. But if you ask some of the gun owners out there, they believe just the opposite. Hmm.

4th Amendment:
"...unreasonable searches and seizures..." Sound rather vague to me. What constitutes an unreasonable search? Certainly that phrase has been fought over in the court system a great deal over the last few years. I think that the law enforcement officials of the old west would a different opinion about what was reasonable vs. today's police while conducting searches. Vague and open to interpretation.

8th Amendment:
"...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted..." The facinating thing is that over the years, the death penalty has come into question as to being cruel and unusual. Aside from the rightness or wrongness of said penalty, the manner of execution is under question in several states. No longer do people get hanged, and electicution is on the way out in many cases. Does the Constitution specify the manner of penalty? Nope, it leave it open to intrepretation and not therefore specific.

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What specific rights? One would think that in the strict interpretation of the Constitution, we would need to have these listed lest we come up with some not on the approved list.

Enough to give one pause to about the specificity of the Constitution and how the phrases were open-ended to allow for interpretation and growth without the need to add an amendment every time some one sneezed.

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

Well Jay all the second Amendment does is allow the government, however the regulate militia, not regulate guns, if you read it literally. Here why they would believe that guns cannot be regulated "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Actually I did that to show how a statement can have a completely different context if you don't show the full text, btw here is the full text.

Amendments to...Article II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To really show how fair I am here is the section that speaks of what a Militia actually is...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here a part of Article V that shows that the Army and Militia's are different "...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia..."

Here's another Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

So what does all this mean well first it means the Federal government can regulate militia (damn it I read the Article wrong ). The Army is a distinct organization, from the Militia, period, it was never designed to be there army. Third, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: says "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." so that means that the Federal Government are supposeds to pay for weapons, however it doesn't state whether or not the members can keep there weapons at home (I believe this was assumed). Finally the Second Amendment modifies the Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, to allow the members of the Militia to bring there weapons home. Does this mean that non-Militia folks can have guns, I think so, however that's more of a Supreme Court to decide.

------------------
Pinky we will so rule the world...as soon as I figure out what step 2 is.

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

At any rate Omega, what do you mean? I didn't even mention you. Surely you aren't suggesting that I was sarcastic? I do not have even an ounce of such feelings. I'm shocked, really.