Would it not be better if the argument was framed as:

What circumstances can be considered justifiable homicide?

Then the question of when a human egg and sperm becomes human simply goes away.

jlb101 wrote:

"We were adequately trained and knew the consequences of doing the wrong thing"

You are right, and to puncuate the thought.

Refilling a propane tank would be simular to refilling an ammonia tank, as both are stored at a relitivally low pressure ~100 psig in the form of a fully saturated vapor and liquid.

Natural Gas on the other hand would be stored at comparitivally high pressures as a gas . . . > 1000 psig.

The amount of energy in the "tank" would be low for a gas (Natural Gas) as compaired to a liquid (propane or ammonia).

Of course, the energy content of gasoline or diesel is greater than any of the fore-mentioned fuels.

Natural gas must be stored at high pressures . . . > 1000 psig . . . and requires expensive pumps that could be dangerous if used improperly during the filling process. Additional risk exists during an accident, over an above what exists when using a liquid fuel.

NH3, ammonia, is an interesting way to store hydrogen for use as a liquid, room temperature fuel, @ ~ 100 psig. It is also interesting for fuel distribution because it can use wind and solar power to produce the ammonia, where the power is then distributed in the liquid form.

If the problem we are attempting to solve includes replacing oil as a fuel for vehicles and using a fuel that does not produce carbon dioxide then hydrogen hence ammonia is a solution. Unlike propane, ammonia does not produce CO2, and unlike hydrocarbon fuels, ammonia can be made directly from renewable energy sources with out the need for an electrical distribution system.

http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/

What we need to get Congress out of the legitimate affairs of Business. Congress has been the root problem, in my opinion, of nearly every economic mess this country has gotten into. The Keynesian Economic model appears to have been invented out of thin air as nothing more than an excuse for Government to mettle in the affairs of everyone's life. If this country is to survive, the role of Government must be redefined such that government no longer allowed running the entire country like a mob protection racket and we must end Congresses role of Social Engineering our society to some un-workable utopian form, which forces a god-less Humanism religion down the throat of every citizen.

ThisOneGuy wrote:

My point is that right wingers typically drag out the states right argument when all else fails. It usually comes out so late in the debate as to seem disingenuous.

Don't agree . . .

It is not the far right of the Republican Party that promotes these libertarian or classic liberal arguments. These arguments are being promoted by people that identify themselves with the Constitutional, Libertarian and Independent Parties.

The Republican Party as a whole supports a strong centralized Federal Government. Where Republicans differ with the present Democratic is the mix of services provided to the people from a regulated private sector to public sector.

The States rights movement is simply an extension of the movement to limit the power of a centralized Federal Government in order to regain some home rule back to the people.

Whether you believe in it or not, both the Democratic and Republican parties have lost the confidence and support of many Americans who now see our two party systems as the root of many of the problems in our country today. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the start of a revolution that will first occur in the ballot box.

uddeboda wrote:

Lemahj, ""What kind of entitlement were in place before and after the writing of the Constitution?

Free health care?
Unemployment Compensation?
Welfare?
Food Stamps?
ACORN?""

I stand corrected . . . I didn't recognise you were posting to LarryVegas.

In speaking about what the Public Sector (Government) gave to all the general population, the public sector entitlements that you listed did not exist 200 years ago.

Socialism and Collectivism has always existed in both the public and private sector, but the goals of the public sector and private sector had been historically different. The public sector provided for the common good by building roads and the other needed infrastructure that allows a society to work. And historically, the private sector groups of family, church, individule and local organization of all types did provide for those in need in a community on a case by case basis.

What has changed, is in the concept that the public sector can provide for all the needs of its people such that the collectivist roles traditionally done by the private sector are now being done by the public sector. It is this centralized, forced, re-distribution of wealth, to those in need that has caused the uproar from the common taxpayer.

The current concept of Socialism has changed from what that word meant in the past. That is why in the minds of many, what was considered good in the past is now thought of as being bad.

Uddeboda wrote:

"Larry, Population at the time of the writing of the constitution was approx 2.5 million. - Any comments."

I suspect you were speaking to lemahj when you wrote to Larry.

Not certain in what context you are asking this question, but let me give it a go:

Human nature has not changed much as we can see ourselves in the classics of the near and far past. It does not matter if the population is 2.5 million or 250 million, humans are humans. Only the times and technology changes.

Our language has changed, and the meaning of words have evolved over time. Orwell suggested that these changes to words could be done to eliminate certain concepts from the minds of the people. Thus the concept of newspeak was introduced by Orwell.

It could be argued that the meaning of Welfare is indeed one of those words whose meaning was intentially mangled, in order to twist the written word of the Constitution (some call this process of twisting words: a living document) in order to achieve a goal that could not be accomplished by way of admending the Constitution.

America, during the 18th century existed mostly along the coast and waterways that allowed travel between those population centers. Towns existed, but could not prosper into large communities inland until after new transportatation systems were developed.

Attempts to create canal systems were attempted at great cost, to interconnect existing city centers in the US during the late 18th century, but most of those enterprizes ended up in failure due to economic reasons.

America started to move westward and inland after the invention of the steam locomotive, ~1820. This invention opened up vast areas of land to be settled, and provided a reasonable method of moving large amounts of commerce and people.

The development of the steam locomotive first tracked Englands lead, but the economics soon caused the American rail system to adopt less expensive rails routes that allowed steeper grades and more powerful, but less efficient locomotives.

So, Uddeboda, you can see how the context of a question can be so very important. In this case of attempting to answer your question, I have covered a lot of ground and I also know that I most likely didn't truly answer your question.

Yes, Stan G and TePee, you both have good points now let's consider some other historical points to put this all into context.

Stan G correctly points out the language at the beginning of Section 8, the paragraph that precedes the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. The point missed by that argument, is that in the writing style of the 18th century, a paragraph was first wrote in order to create the context that the following paragraphs were to be considered. The point is that the enumerated powers granted to the Government followed the paragraph cited. As has been often pointed out in the past, if the first paragraph was considered to be an enumerated power, any power could be claimed by the Government and the remaining powers granted in the following paragraphs would have no meaning.

TePee, you must consider the etymology of the word welfare in the context of the 18th century when you interpret the constitution. The meanings of many words have changed over the past 200 years and the word welfare is one of them. At the time, the expression general welfare had nothing to do with the concept we have today called welfare.

Interested parties are invited to read about the educational system called the Trivium, which was the dominate educational method at the time, in order to better understand my arguments. Incidentally, it also shares the same root meaning as the word trivial.

In summary, when comprehending the document called the Constitution of the United States, one must read and understand it as 18 century educated men.

TePee wrote

"If you feel our representatives have exceeded their constitutional authority, why not take it to the Courts?"

The game is rigged within the three branches of Government, and the oath of office to defend the Constitution means very little today. The only thing the politicians listen to today, is the mood of the people, thus the only power the people have over the Politicans is public opinion . . . and the stronger said the better.

Tea party, anyone?

Stanley R. Goldfarb wrote"

"The health and welfare of the nation are not the responsibility of a corporation, nor should they be. On the other hand, the president and every member of Congress, having vowed to uphold the Constitution, are responsible for the health and welfare of all the citizens."

Not true, the Constitution said that it would "promote" the General Welfare, not "provide". The Constitution does provide for very limited enumerated powers. The General Welfare of the people is not an entitlement that is listed in the Constitution.

What Mr. Goldfarb is speaking about is not the Rule of Law of a Constitutional Republic, but the "Rule of Man" in a Majority Rule Democracy.

It would be wise to understand the difference between these two forms of government.