Is Missouri sick of  pro-Amendment 2 line "Don't worry your little head-let scientists decide what's right"?
927213
You make a good point. It is not at all obvious that a technical medical training guarantees a solidly thought out ethical stance on any issue. This seems especially true when the scientists and doctors involved have a vested interest in this research going forward (billions in federal grant money, and much more in biomedical patents). \n\nI read recently that there is an ethically less problematic process called ANT that can make stem cells without killing developing human beings. (see link) \n\nThese claims have been raised by other answers:\nCLAIM 1. Sections 5, 6, 6a protect against unethical practices.\nMY RESPONSE: If you were poor and I offered you $50,000 for your liver, would you "voluntarily" give it to me? Section 17 authorizes the following to be paid to a "voluntary donor:" "consideration (money) paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law." In other words, women will be paid for their eggs by a feltility clinic. These eggs will then be sold to researchers. This is the issue that feminists and many African American leaders have with Amendment 2. See link 2 below. \n\nCLAIM 2: this amendment bans cloning or attempted cloning, so what's the problem? \nMY RESPONSE: the amendment defines "cloning" in Section 6.2 as "to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being." \nThis means that you can clone all that you want, as long as you don't let the clone grow up. It enshrines in the constitution the requirement that these embryos be killed. Also, a group of 300 lawyers has pointed out that this doesn't necessarily mean that you can't implant the embryo for some other purpose than the creation of a human fetus. For an expert analysis of this issue, see link 3. \n\nFor these reasons, I am not comfortable "taking Mr. Danforth's word for it" that Amendment 2 is good for Missouri.
729128
Ultimately, I think this is a non-partisan issue.  \n\nPreserving societal morals is a human question, not a Republican one.  \n\nTaking the vote to the states, is a good start, and wholly supported Constitutionally, under the 10th Amendment.
1048418
Americans are gullible, they are fed a constant barrage from the right wing that it is a good thing that they wire tap your phone or monitor your e-mails and then threaten them with the T word. So repuglicans being mentally diminished say I have nothing to hide and pass it off. Never mind that the constitution was written to provide safety to our civil liberties and is and has been eroded over the years. Soon they will mount cameras in you bed room so that they can monitor to see that you do not get to much of a kink on. But that will be alright as it will prevent terrorism. Some will believe that.
978545
nope\nbecause common sense to a farmer is not commom sense to a city slicker\nthe problem is, everyone should agree with me and they dont\nits so sad\n:-)\n\npeace
587694
While you're at it, you can tear up the Constitution and punish people for having original thoughts... \n\nThere are so many worse things to be offended by...
654087
What this country needs is for YOU to read the Constitution.\n\nNearly everything you are babbling about is not accurate.  Even the courts screw it up sometimes.  Roe vs. Wade was decided based on a right to "privacy".  Go find the word in the Constitution, and while you are at it find the word "torture".\n\nI seldom come to this section just because of people like you who know so little about this country and what it is based on.  \n\nI will leave now, and go somewhere else where the average IQ of questioners is a positive number.
741301
at this point there is nothing i can do about it, i try to vote to put lawmakers with my point of view in office, but time and time again lawmakers are put into that dont even hint to the constitution.  \nFree speech is a constitutional right, that i think i should have but it will probably be taken away again by regulating the internet, its only a matter of time!!
915456
"... will the libs shut up about that?"\n\nDon't hold your breath.
652058
People don't want to think... they don't want to question... they just want sound bytes... "flip-flopper" is an easy reason not to vote for someone, God forbid you actually look at if he did flip-flop on anything or why he may have "flip-flopped"... \n\nand do you know the worst part... they know that they don't question things... and they don't care enough to change it... they just want someone to tell them what they want to hear... they don't even care if they do anything about it... \n\nI've said it before... Republicans would follow Bush into hell, even if they just got done swimming in a pool filled with gasoline...
830615
This is the insanity of giving anyone power.  The American Constitution is meant to restrain the power of the state and the government by protecting individual Rights as sacrosanct and inviolate.  However, too often the government and state have colluded to convince and coerce people into surrendering a Right for a government permit or state-given benefit in the name of greater "security".  This is a form of fraud, and is clearly taking advantage of a electorate that is too stupid, thanks to continually dumbed-down ciriculums, to know better.  There's a sucker born every minute, which means there are billions of them on the face of this globe.
840670
I realize this is probably a waste of time; but what the heck.\n\nAs explained, the idea of a "people's right" was based entirely on the predicate assumption of State regulation. So actually, the militias then are the 18th century equivalent of the National Guards of today. And what the amendment protects is the states' right to have them. These are the only state defense forces recognized by law. You say that you won't get into the discussions of Supreme Court decisions in the last decades. You may recall my original answer. The Supreme Court has NEVER in the history of the Republic (repeat: NEVER) substantiated your interpretation. So forget about "recent decades," as you say. Your view is not substantiated by American Judicial History -- period.\n\nYou say that it's shooting myself in the foot to say that portions of the constitution are anachronistic? How? The Letters of Marque clause is anachronistic. The 3/5ths compromise is anachronistic.\nThe 3rd Amendment is anachronistic. (There is absolutely no case law under it -- it's dead). All but one sentence of the entire, long, 14th amendment is anachronistic. There are many elements of the document that have no relevance today because they addressed concerns that were limited to a specific time. That's just the way it is -- sorry.\n\nAs stated, your idea of a self regulated private militia being what the founders intended by this amendment is refuted by the extant record of the Constitutional Convention and the minutes of the First Congress. The whole idea of eliminating private militias was why the states wanted this amendment in the first place. They wanted to put private militias out of business.\n\nThe greatest single impetus for convening the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the private militia movement known as Shays' Rebellion, in which disgruntled former soldiers in Massachusetts formed a private (well regulated) militia force to stop courts from farm foreclosures. The Founding Fathers were horrified by this. And so were the states. And again, to reiterate, THAT's why they wanted to regulate the militias.\n\nI've already addressed the issue of "shall not be infringed." If your interpretation is correct, then why have courts over the centuries (not "recent decades" as you imply) NEVER ruled in your favor.\n\n\n\n==============================================\n\nYes, as a matter of fact I do know what it means.\n\nLike the Article One provision giving Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque," the 2nd Amendment is an anachronistic holdover from the late 18th century.\n\nSupporters of the NRA and other like organizations always forget about that all important opening clause (which I'm glad you included). The purpose of the amendment is stipulated right there -- "A well regulated militia being necessary..."\n\nAfter the United States gained independence it was still confronted by many threats: the British to the north, the Spanish to the south, and the Native American tribes all around. After George Washington laid down his arms, the national army ceased to exist, and the burden for security fell on the states. Unfortunately, the states at that time were no more capable of providing the security than the infant central government. This meant that local communities and individuals were responsible for providing their own security. With few roads for transporting armies, and no money for troops, what else were the people supposed to do?\n\nThe militia system developed to enable local populations the ability to provide defense. By law, the militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 who owned a firearm. They could be mustered by order of the governor of the state or by special order of the President of the United States.\n\nThis was not part of the original constitution. The reason it exists is that during the ratification of the
1067105
Unfortunately I don't think so.  Things like that don't often happen to the people who deserve it.\n\nHateful, yes, but I am from Kansas, and I am sick and tired of them.   I used to think that everyone deserves to state their opinion whenever and however they want within legal bounds. \n\nI don't think that anymore and i hate myself for it.
958084
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp\n\nHope that helps. \n\nHere's a link to a clear presentation of the claims about deception that I found helpful: (it doesn't take a stand one way or the other on the amendment, although some of the signators are against it.)\nhttp://stlouis.craigslist.org/pol/229601042.html
874028
I havent really decided If I'm a republican or a democrat...so I guess that makes me neutral right now. But  you said 'morals' and when I vote, I vote morally, and My morals usually tend to lead me to vote more republican than anything else. I am okay with stem cell research, but NOT okay with embryonic stem cell research. I dont think its okay to grow babies just to kill them. So obviously I'm also against abortion (which is usually my main issue when I vote). Feminists like to say its not okay for anyone to decide what we do with our bodies...but I say its not okay for us to decide that its okay to murder unborn children because we dont want to be bothered with them and we didnt take the proper precautions to ensure we wouldnt become pregnant in the first place. I am against the death penalty without some SERIOUS evidence. ie- That person has to have DNA all over the crime scene, be on video, confess to doing it, etc. If you're *almost* sure that the person is guilty, but not completely sure, that's not good enough. Innocent people have been put to death for crimes that people were sure they commited at the time.....and are now sure that they didnt commit them. Im against guns and owning guns. 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' is a bunch of BS. "people with guns, kill people." Ive heard people say that if guns were illegal then only criminals would have them. If that were the case then we'd be able to prosicute them for owning the gun, instead of having to wait til they did something with it. As far as the war goes...I dont know how I feel about that. Im kind of for it, kind of against it. Alot of good things came from it, but also alot of innocent people died because of it.  As far as the gay marriage thing goes...I'm suppose to be against it based on my religion and beliefs..But once again I'm not sure how i feel about that either. I have nothing against gay people, I live my life, they live theirs. So..theres a general idea of my morals for you. Im a moral republican (for the most part).
82513
since the constitution and the Bill of rights does not come right out, in black and white, and say certin things are legal or illigal, it is our job to make sure the courts have it right.  So I have no problem testing the supreme court.
129204
They are afraid they might be wrong.\n\nThe phrase "Separation of Church and State" has been bandied about for so long that 67% of all Americans believe that it is actually in the Constitution. In fact, those three words appear nowhere in the Constitution. \n\nOblivious to the irrelevance of their arguments, and at the same time refusing to acknowledge that no document of state, let alone the Constitution, has ever proposed such a concept, those on the Left have tried to convince the American people that our founding documents warned of the dangers of mixing politics and religion.\n\nAnytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State".  Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced.  However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment.  The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.  The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion.  This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church.  Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.  Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights.  Jefferson wrote: \n\nI contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.  (1)\nThe reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member.  Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church.  He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.  Williams had said: \nWhen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.  And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2) \n\nThe "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.  The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. \n\nThe American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England.  Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates.  They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience.  No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665.  Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.  The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.  The only real reason to separate the church from t
880034
Leaves the decision to the states, like the 10th amendment required in the first place.\n\nNow let's get it right with abortion.  Then we can move on.