"Americans not getting bang for buck in Europe"

Hi,

I'm sure you could google up the number... it's not that uncommon in
situations where a law is passed by a slim majority, the president
doesn't like it, but it's moderately popular and there are the votes for
an override.

Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 04:22:42 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:


or with a simple majority if the president just doesn't sign it.

laws can be passed by congress and the president neither sign it into
law nor veto it.


You mean: "laws passed by congress shall become law IF the
president neither sign it into law nor veto it."

I wonder how many times that has happened.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

--

--- New Derringer Kit Gun Side Plates ---
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669421796
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669968532

the "national guard" are federal troops.

while the govenor can call them into State service they're paid for by
the feds who have the ultimate control over them.

this was last ruled on a few years ago when a govenor prohibited "the
state militia" (national guard troops) to be deployed outside the State.

some states HAVE militias some do not.

I believe Texas can have an Army and a Navy but they're little more than
color guards as I understand it.


Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:32:12 -0600, Anonymouse
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:


On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 04:20:25 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:



actually there were/are 2 classes of the militia.

the "organized militia" (like the army... the paid military).

and the "unorganized militia" which consists of all male persons 17-45
who are or who intend to become Citizens.


Where does it say that?


Militia Act of 1792


Nowhere does that act say anything about a "regular" nor an
"organized" nor an "unorganized" militia. In fact, it's function
is organize the various state militias (which have evolved itnot
he national Guard) to a common standard. the act is obviusly
obsolete, since I haven't seen many officers sporting swords
these days.
See
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Con...fault.asp?ID=9


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

--

--- New Derringer Kit Gun Side Plates ---
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669421796
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669968532

but the citizeny bearing arms (in this case against the government) IS
the militia.

Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:31:10 -0600, Anonymouse
wrote:



The Reid wrote:


If bombers drop bombs and soldiers fire rifles, its war.

or a minor police action.

or a war with contracted mercenaries... the feds have hired out the
military as mercenaries to foreign military powers a time or two lately
you know.

but these united States have not been At War since the surrender of
imperial japan in 1945.

on the other hand the unorganized militia did take on (and win) against
the government in the US as recently as august 2, 1946

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm


Nowhere on that page does the word "militia" appear.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

--

--- New Derringer Kit Gun Side Plates ---
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669421796
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669968532

they should be upset that the feds hired out their sons and daughters as
mercenaries to their cronies.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


Anonymouse wrote:

The Reid wrote:


If bombers drop bombs and soldiers fire rifles, its war.

or a minor police action.

or a war with contracted mercenaries... the feds have hired out the
military as mercenaries to foreign military powers a time or two lately
you know.

but these united States have not been At War since the surrender of
imperial japan in 1945.


I'm sure the widows and orphans of the succeeding conflicts take great
comfort from the "fact" that their loved ones were not killed in a war!

--

--- New Derringer Kit Gun Side Plates ---
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669421796
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3669968532

Tim Kroesen wrote:
The 'militia' was easily identified; all "men" between certain ages;
today we include 'women' in the description of a citizen. Was not that
'adaptation' overdue and acceptable? Who BTW is the only generally
regarded 'heroic US figure' to come out of the Iraq conflict so far; a
woman from the standing 'militia'...

You're talking about the woman who Saved Freedom And Democracy from Saddam's
Al Qaeda by huddling in a ball after being injured? 'Cause if that's all we
got for heroes, we're in big trouble.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:31:16 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:

Hi,

it doesn't.

What doesn't?

so?

Anonymouse wrote:

where in the constitution is the priviledge of keeping slaves refered to
as a right that may not be infringed?

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:38:32 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:


well the 2nd notes that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

it doesn't grant that right.

since the right isn't granted by congress I would doubt it could be
taken away... even if an amendment was passed... since that right
pre-existed the constitution.



That's a silly argument. The right to keep slaves existed before
the constitution as well.

ANYTHING in the constitution can be amended away.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:37:41 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:

the "national guard" are federal troops.

while the govenor can call them into State service they're paid for by
the feds who have the ultimate control over them.

Uh, no. The feds must federalize the National Guard to to put
them in federal service. However, the federaal governemtn does
supply much of the funding for the individual state National
Guards.

this was last ruled on a few years ago when a govenor prohibited "the
state militia" (national guard troops) to be deployed outside the State.

The Guard is normally under state control, but if the feds want
it the feds can impose federalization placing the guard under the
command of the Army (or Air Force); once done, the governor no
longer has any say in the disposition of the Guard members so
federalized. In recent history this was most famously done when
Gov Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the Arkansas National
Guard to keep the first black children out of Little Rock Central
High School; President Eisenhower then federalized the Guard and
had them commanded to facilitate the attendance of the black
children.

Because the Guard is easily converted to federal service the
federal government has long provided much of the funds and
training, regarding them as an extra form of army reserves.

some states HAVE militias some do not.

Which states have militias (other than the National Guard)?

I believe Texas can have an Army and a Navy but they're little more than
color guards as I understand it.

What you believe isn't relevant hereL what do you know?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:39:26 GMT, Anonymouse
wrote:

but the citizeny bearing arms (in this case against the government) IS
the militia.

So long as they're well regulated, I suppose.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Call it what you will; she is clearly the most well regarded 'heroic'
US combatant to emerge from the campaign...

Some gave all too, as you diminish their sacrifice for *your* Country.

Tim K

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Tim Kroesen wrote:
The 'militia' was easily identified; all "men" between certain
ages;
today we include 'women' in the description of a citizen. Was not
that
'adaptation' overdue and acceptable? Who BTW is the only generally
regarded 'heroic US figure' to come out of the Iraq conflict so far;
a
woman from the standing 'militia'...

You're talking about the woman who Saved Freedom And Democracy from
Saddam's
Al Qaeda by huddling in a ball after being injured? 'Cause if that's
all we
got for heroes, we're in big trouble.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world:
http://travel.u.nu

Following up to Tim Kroesen

Call it what you will; she is clearly the most well regarded 'heroic'
US combatant to emerge from the campaign...

Some gave all too, as you diminish their sacrifice for *your* Country.

Its a good idea to separate the heroism of soldiers from the
strategy and politics of wars. Some people here are unable to
comprehend supporting "our boys" while being against the war.
It will remain to be seen what the sacrifice of the troops and
others dying daily achieves in Iraq.

--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap