Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 3:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for upholding free speech Kevin.

Americans are supposed to be suspicious of government. That is basic to our philosophy. And how can we help being ill informed when government so often makes no effort to be open beyond legal minimums, requires items to be placed on agendas at controlled town meetings, and is staffed by those you refer to as leaders, once known as public servants, who have no discernible poltical philosophy except as can be detected through their actions?

As to divisive, we are supposed to be divisive as well. The only alternative to being divisive is to go along with someone else's agenda. If you don't agree, where is the benefit in that?

I wish some local politicians and board and commission members would respond, but if they do, don't expect they will get the same result here that they would get in a meeting they control. There are a lot of questions I would like a direct answer to and I am sure many others feel the same way.

Posted by hopefloats (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 5:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love blogs on the ND. I think it is hilarious when some ppl. show their idenity to make a point and dare the other blogger to do the same. It's blogging ppl. get over it. I think my fav. blogs were the cutting of the trees in natchez and the story on the tribe that divided over the casino. way to go nd.

Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no reason to believe that a few local elected officials are not participating on the Democrat's website. They just tend to post anonymously like most of the other people. But it is next to impossible to have an intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions between people who post with their names and the people who hide their identity. Anonymous posters can and will say anything at all with no consequences other than an occasional deletion. I would love to see people required to post with their real names because that would add accountability to their words. But that would also reduce the traffic on the site and that is contrary to what the Democrat wants in this era of online advertising. You are just feeding the masses, Kevin. You are giving the flame crowd a soapbox in exchange for hits on your site. Just remember that other body part that accompanies the opinion may also get bitten.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahhh, the joy of posting my opinion w/o having to identify myself!!! Can you imagine the chaos in our community if we used our real names? We would no longer be safe.
blackwood...wouldn't you hate to read a story in the Democrat relating to two posters who had a shootout because their opinions differ? Sad to say, but that's the way the world is today. I, for one, appreciate the Democrat for allowing us to comment anonymously. I can state my opinion without someone hunting me down.

Thanks for the great article, Kevin. And thanks for letting me comment on your stories. I've met some really neat people on this forum and I've gotten to know your writers better, as well.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great article Kevin and much thanks again for free speech. Keep up the good work.

Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kpage, I really feel that our current state, on the Democrat's site, is chaos. Once the Democrat required people to post with their names, the number of posts would drop tremendously. When the numbers of posts go down, the number of hits on the site also go down. And that is contrary to what the Democrat wants. Just my opinion...

Marc Blackwood

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's cool, Marc. I respect you and your opinion, even if it differs from mine. That's what makes our world colorful. If we all thought the same, there would be no need for this forum. I choose to stay anonymous because it's safe. I can blab about what I feel and not have to worry about getting an unlisted phone number. Unfortunately people can be so mean. Take care Marc. I look forward to reading your future opinions.

Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you kpage....People can get crazy at times lol...

Kevin what a wonderful article...Keep up the god work...Thanks for allowing the blogs...

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on May 11, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

Yes, Kevin and Ben, thank you for providing this forum for all of us to express our opinions. Regardless of the views expressed, the very fact that folks take the time to contribute their thoughts is an indication that Natchez matters to all of us, though we may often be in heated disagreement about what is best for our community.

I choose to post with my name simply because I feel that if I am willing to say something, then I should also be willing to take responsibility for it. If I am not willing to claim my words publicly, then they probably do not need to be uttered. It's too easy to be nasty and vindictive when individuals can conceal their identity and thus avoid taking ownership of their statements. Just my opinion.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Diplomatically stated Mr. Cooper! Keep up the good work! I , of course, agree with your concept of name usuage as stated to you before! Tell your webmaster that they are doing well also,

Posted by GopherBaroque (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who put the big fat pig of a man on the front web page after he murdered that majestic animal? Now that is my opinion. Are you gonna censor it like you have in the past?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marc,

Anonymity is no hindrance to intelligent conversation.

The reason we vote anonymously is so there will be no political repercussions should people we did not vote for come to power. The same principle applies to anonymous posting. People are afraid others will use political power against them even or especially if what they post is true and entirely legitimate. Why are people afraid of political repercussion? This comes from experience.

"When the people fear government there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is freedom."

Exactly what consequences do you feel people should face for posting their opinions? Tasering? Denial of building permits or occupational licenses? Social shunning or banishment?

I applaud Kevin and his staff for their adaptive use of technology to push the value and responsibility of journalism to a new level. They should profit from their service to the community. They don't censor people for taking shots at the Democrat, deserved or not. They are being fair and responsible, and newspapers know the laws concerning what can be published in their domain inside and out.

Democracy is messy, frustrating, and irritating. That's part of what makes it so fun.

Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, Maybe I should have worded myself slightly different. Intelligent and considerate people can have meaningful conversation while remaining anonymous. But the inconsiderate people are allowed in. And anonymous inconsiderate people will and can say anything. This greatly muddies the waters.

I'm sorry that you feel I would like to punish people for their opinions. My concern is for the lies and slander. Yes, the Democrat usually deletes it. But they also provide the platform for it in the first place. The fact that it maybe gets deleted doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Take what I say with a grain of salt Marc. Sometimes people are inconsiderate but I have noticed a small but steady change in the way people present themselves on here. People don't always know how to express themselves and beneath the inconsideration may be a valid point.

Kevin points out that sometimes we are ill informed and that is very true. It is just that so far there hasn't been a good mechanism for being better informed. For instance, if you go to a town meeting an agenda has to be followed. Not always because the evil politicians want to control the discourse but because they and the others at the meetings have already put in a days work. There just hasn't been time for all questions to be asked and answered. The forum is a good way for this to happen at a time convenient to all who participate.

I am relieved to know you would not have me tasered for disagreeing with you. I never really suspected you would be for any of that, it is just my wierd sense of humor and my desire to stir you to talk more that makes me say things like that.

Happy Sunday.

Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, No problem. If you can improve the attitude of folks here, my hat is off to ya. Meanwhile, I'll slip back into my own anonymous mode. I wonder if this means that I hate myself......

Marc

Posted by kcooper (Kevin Cooper) on May 11, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice debate, folks. Obviously, y'all know how I feel.

Marc, I greatly respect your opinion about this and am glad you shared it. I disagree, strongly, however, with your believe that the comments feature is somehow about generating money. Sure, we're a business and we need to make money so we can pay our employees (our annual payroll is well over $1 million), pay our bills and make lots of contributions to events and groups in town. But that doesn't mean that we're solely motivated by money.

The interesting thing about the comments feature is that it illustrates something that lots of people (both private citizens and public leaders) seem to miss. The comments are a bit of a mirror held up to society.

Sure, it might be a small segment and maybe even a minority of the greater populace's opinion, but it's still a segment. Letting those opinions (especially the crazy, ill-informed ones) go unanswered and uncorrected perpetuates falsehoods and conspiracy theorists.

It's much better to confront things with the truth than with denial.

I view the comments feature as a more modern day telephone system or CB radio network. It's a structure that we provide. The comments are the responsibility of the individual. Lots of good comes out of them, too. If you haven't done so, read some of the amazing memories shared on some of our obituaries, for example. The "good" of the comments has thus far far outweighed the "bad."

Thanks for reading us (and for contributing in constructive debates about our community).
Kevin

Posted by wifetoone (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like coming on and reading the comments. And I'm glad I can give everyone my two cents worth. Thanks Kevin

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kevin...good op-ed, well received...IMHO, since I'm allowed to have one...would you consider a more ongoing blog so that continuity of discourse could occur rather that it being interrupted by the story or topic receding into the past every couple of days or weeks with the news cycle?...just a suggestion...again, good work.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to express an opinion that may be slightly at variance with some in the blog regarding "anonymity" and "opinion".

The following is Webster's definition:

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpin-yən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based.

While this definition does not specifically state that opinions have to be publically expressed, the accepted usage of this definition is protected by the Constitution and every office holder, military member and law enforcement member in the United States (with a very few exceptions) whether we like what the person expressing the opinion says or not.

Having said that, logic would lead one to think that an opinion not expressed publically isn't free speech...it has to be public in order to be free speech, otherwise, why would it need protection.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One step further, if an opinion is to have weight, that is to say, that it will be given crediblity with others (the public) then it is only reasonable to expect that person to accept responsibility for his or her words, support them with a rationale and conversely deny them if they aren't true.

If one is afraid to exercize their right to give their opinion under their own name there is no free speech. It is pretty evident that in the US today, this situation isn't the case, it is illegal in every state in the union and we see trials in the news about it everyday.

It is self-evident from history that if people do not exercise this right and do so with the courage and conviction of owning their opinions, then there is a danger of the loudest voice winning the debate even though they are wrong at the expense of those too frightened to take a stand.

The Rev. Wright controversy is a case in point...while I abhor what he said and the way he said it...I will defend, to the death his right to say it. I feel the same way about David Duke.

If you have an opinion, dare to say it with your own name in front of it. It tends to eliminate kooks on both sides of a topic or issue because kooks don't want their names associated with kooky ideas. It would also almost immediately identify those who have something constructive to add to the debate and then the bomb-throwers can be marginalized.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A vote isn't an opinion...it is a civic duty and privilege of the people to create, define and guide their government.

If it were a right it couldn't be taken away, which it can in the case of felons...it is private and secret in order that the people can preserve their right to an opinion...even felons get opinions.

BTW, duels were outlawed in Mississippi in the 1850's, I believe, perhaps earlier. The notion that signing your name to a blog and having lethal retribution visit you is spurious. There are some opinions that are illegal such as the ones that do actually cause death like domestic disputes and drug disputes, but it would be a cowardly thing to withold a legally recognized opinion and take personal responsibility for it for fear of retribution that is virtually non-existant.

If you have an opinion that I disagree with I don't think that I'm going to get angry enough to gun you down as was insinuated in an earlier blog, I doubt I'd refuse to shake your hand on the street or wave to you in the supermarket we'd be more likely to get into, well, a debate.

Posted by Marc_Robson (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not afraid to post under my real name. I think everyone should come out of the closet, like I did a couple of years ago.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marc...so far, from looking at your other posts on the Isle of Capri reopening...that's the only thing we agree on.

Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kevin, Please forgive me for suspecting that the motives of the Natchez Democrat were less than altruistic. I agree that many comments are interesting because, as you say, they mirror our community. I also appreciate your timely and ready use of the delete button.

Sam, some years back I posted regular on a few boards for photographers. Some of us (usually the professionals) always posted with our real names. Others posted anonymously. All the boards degenerated into cesspools due to the postings of the anonymous guys. I've done very little posting anywhere since. I appreciate yourself and others that post here with your names.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think we are really anonymous anyways. Kevin knows who we really are, lol. He may not be talking; but then again, he may be. Or, at least the admin of this site knows who we are by our unique ip address. If you really think you are anonymous, know this...everything you do or say is recorded in your computer, and you can be tracked by your virtual fingerprints. I don't see why we should make it easy on those we rub the wrong way to find out who we are without a little elbow grease. But go ahead and make your remarks believing that you are anonymous; and to me you are, but not to the admin of this site. Also, you should know that the admin of this site will, if subpenoa'd, give you up to the authority rather than doing jail time.

Ok, so that's just my humble opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The really smart ones like Marc already knew that...LOL.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A vote, Sam, is a poll of public opinion.

Poll, policy, politician....I wonder if there could be any reason they all begin with the letters p-o-l?

A vote is not a privilege, it is a right. It has only been transformed into a privilege through corruption. Registering to vote in most states includes making a contract with the state to obey all the laws of a state, an impossible task since we are now so overburdened with laws it is impossible to know them all. What duty obligates us to a one-sided contract in order to express our opinion?

I see no reason to deny felons the right to vote. We don't deny them the right to lobby or make campaign contributions.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't understand why we don't have to show identification for one of the most important things we will do on election day...vote. We have to sign in to get that card to stick into the machine...why don't we have to prove we are who we say we are? We would still be anonymously voting. I could go in there and say I was someone I just read off the list who doesn't have a mark by their name. The clerk wouldn't know me from enkikur, while I might really be enlilkikur.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur...from your statements here, in your last post, you seem to be an anarchist...in fact, as a citizen, if you are, you do have a pact with the people of the United States to uphold and defend and abide by the constitution, a document ratified and proven over time to be the best government, of the people, by the people and for the people yet created...it is that pact, that, as a citizen, binds you to the duty and gives you the privilege to determine what happens in our representative democracy.

If you break that pact by committing felonies against the people you forfeit your right to have a say in the people's government. You don't lose your God given right to an opinion, but you waive your privilege to have a say in the government of the the people by committing a crime against them...what do you not understand about the justice of that?

You sling a lot of reckless words around, like"corruption" and others, but the fact of the matter is that you haven't had any trouble vis a vis your right to an opinion in espousing them no matter how poisonous. How special is that?...what ultimate hypocrisy?...how ungrateful to a country that has given you the opportunity to do so?

Posted by Riffian1964 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I really enjoy reading the comments and thanks for provoking the discussion Kevin. The main benefit of these blogs, in my opinion, is getting people "out to think and discuss." How many of us meet and carry on conversations with others in which anything and everything is discussed? One of my best memories of college is a group called the Fortnighters who met (every two weeks, thus the name) to talk. There were no rules except that we must all be civilized (which might be a good rule on the blogs) and we must be able to make our points intelligently. Blog on folks and let's enjoy learning from each other!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace007...because of the mistaken belief that voting is a right...it's not, it is a duty, a privilege and an honor for citizens, who have not commited felonies, to participate in the greatest form of government yet invented by man...it ain't perfect, but if you don't like it you can always say so.

Posted by free_radical (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marc should have stayed in the closet, LITERALLY!

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong again Sam.

From the Supreme Court of Georgia:

Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

Because, Sam, neither you nor I signed the Constitution did we? And the members of the delegation who did sign it were not even authorized to create the Constitution but were rather sent by trusting parties to amend the Articles of Confederation. At the time the Constitution was such a contentious issue some delegates walked away from the convention in disgust. Thomas Jefferson said the presidency, as created in the Constiitution, "was a bad edition of a Polish king."

However, I support the Constitution because I choose to do so. I have taken no oath to do so. I have signed no document committing to do so. Like you I agree that it sets forth an acceptable form of government that would be greatly desirable to the corrupted form we have today.

You are a very politcally confused person, so I will be patient and continue to try to educate you.

The country did not give me my rights. Nature and nature's God gave them to me. At least that is what the writers of the Constitution said. That is the highest law. If that is anarchal, then anarchy is a divine institution.

I also point out something else to you regarding anarchy. The writers of the Constitution regarded government as inherently dangerous to the liberties of the people so they wrote a document restricting the power of government. Our government was designed to be as close to anarachy as it could be while still providing for the general welfare and common defense.

You say I sling a lot of words around recklessly. It is more accurate to say we have a representative republic, for democracy is even closer to anarchy than what we have and the writers of the Constitution believed pure democracy to be the most dangerous form of government of all.

Not being allowed to vote does not take away a felon's power to influence the direction of government. That is one reason I believe it useless not to allow a felon to vote. A felon has violated no contract with the people. A felon by nature would not make such a contract.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How would one know if a felon votes or not? No one ever checks his picture identification at the voting booth. All he would need to do is give another name, like the name of someone who died last year and never got taken off the books, or someone in a nursing home. Or, if he knows his moma or dad won't go vote, he could get his girlfriend to go vote under his moma's name and then the girlfriend can go vote again at her own presinct, and he can go vote as his dad...now, by being crafty and not having to properly identify himself, he got three votes for the party of his choice, because you know if he can convince the girlfriend to vote as his mom, he can convince her of who to vote for.

Posted by SimpleSimon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I for one love to read the forums. I check them out almost everyday. I have noticed that peoples tolerance levels on here are getting better and the humor is really great. I know may have voiced some opinions that some people didnt like, but for the most part there is a great love for debate and tolerance on here. In some ways this forum is like an online family where brother and sister dont always agree but we agree to disagree when it counts and support each other when one of us is down.

You've done a great job on here Kevin. The only ones that I really disagree with are slanderous name calling individuals.

Posted by SimpleSimon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 4:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To point out one in this thread alone.... and yes he is intitled to his opinion but GopherBaroque calling someone a name is insisitive to them. Are you an animal rights activist? Do you have a problem with people who hunt? Thankfully everyone else just ignored you, but I for one think that the man in the picture has feelings and deserves more respect than to be called names... I see why most of your posts are pulled... perhaps you dont think about the thoughts or feelings of others before you post!

Posted by adamstanton (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

after a while of reading comments on here ya understand that phrase "get a life" hahahhaa geesh

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur,,,boy, had to dig hard for that court case didn't you? And just what significance did it have? Did it change any other state or federal law? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there are other cases that refute that court opinion...that's right, court opinion.

I am happy for you are above the rest of us in so many ways and are apparently not subject to the constitution exept by choice, for the rest of us citizens we enjoy citizenship because of that constitution which as you state is a pact between the people and their government.

As for me, there is very little confusion...I'm proud to be an American...and I support your right to be misguided.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did yall see the sunrise this morning...it was awesome...go outside and look around...it is a gorgeous morning. Of course, that is just my opinion.....lol...

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I will go get a tamale and a margarita for lunch and relax a while this afternoon....Sorry, I forgot, the NNN shut that down.....hummmmm what should I do then?? I guess it will be bologna and kool-aid for lunch today...

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

KC I really appreciate this forum . I've always felt a friendship with writers of whom words I have read . I don't always agree but I try to respectfully listen . Unfortunately I'm kind of hard-headed so I don't usually change my mind about something I feel passionately about . I don't want to know their names . I don't need to . I feel I know them better with time and truefulness.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great column Kevin. I am all for expressing opinions, anonymity (sp), and all for the ND making money.

I think most people use this forum to whine and moan and do nothing to benefit society.

Sometimes people just need to vent. Doesn't require any of the rest of society to respond. Sometimes silence is deafening when someone makes an inane comment.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's it, natchezsouthside. Sometimes people do need to vent and doing it anonymously can be so cleansing. The way I see it, I can say what I want without fear of retribution. Some folk on this forum believe nothing can happen to me if I spout my opinion with my own name. Well, I'm not too trusting of the general public, what with home invasions and idiots being so popular. (Just read the paper). Also, if I blog about a politician using my real name, don't you think it's possible that person can make it hard on me to live around here? But...I do feel if I have the nerve to talk about someone, I'll have the nerve to say it personally to their face and not share it with the general public. I don't hide behind my words. It's called SELF-PRESERVATION. To thine own self be true! I'll say what I want about someone on this forum, and chances are I'll say it directly to whomever I talk about....but I'm not gonna tell yall who I am.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only problem I have with opinions, on this forum, is that I hate it when they turn into a bunch of unneccessary arguments. Everyone will never agree on anything, because no one person on here has the same personality. But as adults, we should be able to discuss a particular article and disagree without name calling and character judgment, which I have caught myself doing a few times.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

We all have draw. It is because certain subjects are very close to teh heart and it makes us want to lash out. For me, it is about building and construction. When those jobs get stopped, people that have nothing to do with the decisions get their livelyhoods taken away from them and it makes me want to scream...

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can usually skip the crazies, like that trucker guy WHO TYPES IN ALL CAPS. Also, anyone who writes a book long comment. Who has that kind of time???

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Sam, I didn't have to dig hard for that, I've known about it for a while. The significance is that you said the Constitution is a binding pact between the people and the government, and this is proof that at least one state supreme court says there is not. The Constitution is an agreement between the seperate states. There is no penalty for not following the Constitution and that is why lawmakers do it so freely. I don't think it is possible for an individual acting alone outside an office of government to violate the Constitution, but it is possible for people acting collectively as government to do so.

Last summer in a tax case a federal judge told the defendant that the Constitution was not allowed in his court. Just recently the Supreme Court had to consider once again whether or not the right to keep and bear arms applied to individuals.

I am not above anyone Sam. I am just trying to understand on a level beyond flag waving and proclamations of patriotism and supporting one or the other polarized political party what being an American is. It is not an easy task to do so because the country is and always has been full of contradictions in every aspect of its structure and function. I haven't been helped in my quest by the fact that NASD, during the time I was at the stage where earlier generations would have learned the basics of American History, the system switched to focus on social studies instead of history.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Natchezsouthside, people who do not get their intellectual sustenance from television have time to read, reflect, and write comments containing more than one paragraph.

Posted by Marc_Robson (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace007: I will be sure to reformat my 1 terrabyte hard drive so that the authorities can't get anything incriminating when they seize my computer, which is more than likely better than yours, BTW. (3.45 GHZ liquid-cooled processor, 1 TB hard drive, 4 Gigs of RAM, and dual 24" monitors.)

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel you on that one, Red. Some touch me the most, also.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam, I just don't understand the reasoning behind your response to my post. I was simply saying that we all should have to provide proof of identification prior to being allowed to vote at the voting booth. At present, we aren't even required to show our voter registration card, must less proof that we are the person registered to vote. How do those registraes taking our names know we are who we say we are with no proof of identification or no registration card? How do they know that we aren't some felon who has lost his right to vote? (they don't).

Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam and all
Please disregard EnKiKur, he/she is a very "off" individual, who is set on bringing down all in this country that makes us great.

I have often disagreed with others on this site, and sometimes I have influenced them, and sometimes they have influenced me. But not this one, you can argue with him/her till you are blue in the face, he/she doesn't change. I respect most peoples opinion, but with this fellow, there is no entertaining of common sense.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Peace007) Good comment! Louisiana has a good voter I.D. law using Driver's License, etc. According to various Registrar Offices and Clerk of Court Offices, the law seems to be working just fine!

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since this is an article to discuss opinions, what does the phrase, "....preaching to the choir" mean when someone is expressing their opinion? Being a choir member, I'm curious. I hear that a lot, and I have no clue of what they mean.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to a chat area, where we can talk start our own discussions and talk about anything on here? I know I'm dreaming.

Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on May 12, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Drawpointsing,

"Preaching to the choir", "preaching to the chorus", and "preaching to the converted" all mean the same thing, that the people you are trying to convince already believe in what you are saying. Example: "I agree with you entirely; you are preaching to the choir." You are "preaching to the choir" when you talk (preach) to people to convince them of something they already believe. Example: "Don't just stand there preaching to the choir; get out and find new members!" The members of the "choir" play the music, while those in the "chorus" sing along, as the preacher preaches to change (convert) the non-believers into believers ("the converted"). People tell you that you are "preaching to the converted" to let you know they support your idea; they also might be saying you don't need so spend so much energy to make them believe what they already believe. Example: "You don't need to tell me this project is important; you're preaching to the converted."

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Gary. I understand now.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike, the reason you and Sam can't change my point of view is because you give up too easily and resort to calling me names or attempting to marginalize me in other ways instead of presenting me with some body of evidence that supports your point of view, and in some cases you don't even present a clear point of view or recognize how closely aligned I often am with you.

Contrary to trying to bring the country down I am trying to remind people what it is that made this country a desirable place to live.

What made this country great was not a piece of cloth with red, white and blue dye. What made this country great was a set of principles organized around the idea of individual God given rights. The flag is a symbol of those ideas but now people respect the flag more than the ideas..the symbol is revered and the ideas no longer known. Symbol has replaced substance.

Honoring the flag creates strong feelings in me as it does in most everyone I know. Feeling must be supported by understanding.

Sam says he is a Republican but he doesn't understand that the Constitution is binding between the states and in regard to the people, it binds them to nothing but exists to protect them insofar as it can from the inherent dangers of government. This is very simple but few people understand this. The people are above the government.

If you believe me to be incorrect, tell me why and refer me to the historical documents that support your belief and I promise to read and consider them.

Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey redman, what do you do with construction? I mean job types?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taking your ball home Mike? Don't want to play with me anymore? Darn it.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, I think you have earned your own Blog Section. It should be named, "Ask Marty." Or how about you being the comment editor to edit some of these comments (mostly the ones with the run on sentences) You speak with such knowledge, and I know you, Mr. Ellerbe. But sorry, I can't reveal myself. I admit, sometimes I don't feel like reading all of them, but I enjoy the ones I do read.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, hello then draw :) Just wink next time you see me. To get to the heart of things it sometimes takes a lot of words draw. My knowledge can be as faulty as anyone else's and contrary to appearance I do change my mind about things when I see good reason to. I enjoy your posts as well, for their balanced quality.

Posted by rocketman (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey folks, for all of you that get your feathers so ruffled by Marc-Robson, you need to look at this website and you can see how really smart he is: www.nyls.edu/pages/4567.asp. I think you will REALLY enjoy this.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike, I am a licensed builder , remodeler and have my General Contractors license. I do home repair and have been doing tornado damge lately. I have bid on several commercial jobs recently, but have come in 2nd on everyone of them. MY Local competitors are using a lot of illegal immigrants and it is killing me. I do not use any illegals. Period.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rocket, I read the site. I do not know how to build an emulator, but I can build a skyscraper or parking garage or even a soul-food restruant....lol....

Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah I am taking my football bat and leaving this game, seems I never seem to get a good game going with you that make sense, LOL

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace007...I didn't mean to confuse you, I guess the comment I made was too cynical and subtle...it was a dig at EnKikur...I was agreeing with you that we need tamper proof photo voter/citizen ID cards to prevent fraud and to aid in controlling illegal immigration, it could simply be an upgraded drivers license as long as illegal immigrants aren't given drivers licenses and felon's drivers licenses are deactivated for voting purposes.

I was also trying to say that the reason we can't get them is because some people, like EnKiKur see voting as a right and not a duty and privilege. He would allow anyone to vote regardless of whether they had committed a felony. I'm sorry you kinda got caught in the crossfire.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish we had to should picture Id at every vote. It would help to keep fraud down, but nothing is fool-proof.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur...I'm gonna give it one more go, not for your sake, because I believe you to be a hopeless case, but for others who might actually gain from it.

First the court case in Georgia...OK, you dug hard for it sometime in the past, but for the same inane argument...judges are people and even fools can become judges sometimes (the US 9th Court of Appeals is notorious)...one crazy judge in Georgia or a loon in Federal Tax Court doesn't moot my case, on the contrary, all the others who haven't ruled like them prove my case.

Second...there certainly ARE penalties for violating the Constitution...one, impeachment springs to mind...so does the violation of one's civil rights by killing them (it's the federal version of a murder charge)...so does interfering with someone's ability to vote...there are others...your argument just isn't there.

Third...politics has always polarized people...that's its function, I'm sorry you couldn't have had more history and civics lessons, because you might then be able to understand. You do put yourself above others...you state, "The people are above the government". This is entirely false! The people are the government, if you put yourself above the government you are also putting yourself above that government's law...and no one is above the law.

Fourth, the Constitution is not only a binding contract between the States, but also between the Federal government and the people who created, formed it over time and limit it, all via the Constitution. It is a contract to limit the degree to which federal and state governments can interfere with individual lives. It it not a perfect system since it is made by man, but it beats the crap out of whatever is second.

If your argument was true there would never have been a Civil War...all of those people and states that were above the federal government, the Constitution and the law, would simply have walked away with no penalty...pretty naive Mr. Ellerbe. If your arguments were true there would never have been a 14th amendment with the penalties associated with it for its violation. If your arguments were true there would never have been a 1964 voting rights act or the penalties and prosecutions that have occured to enforce it.

There it is, if you can't get it after that you never will.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I seldom understand EnKiKur, but I always find him interesting. I have lots of opinions, and I do enjoy expressing them, but I will not give my real name. How many of you remember that several months ago someone on here started threatening several of the women posters and some were told by, I believe it was rocketman, to change their usernames for safety purposes. I admire you men who are brave and fearless, but many of the women live alone and just can't risk it. If anyone wants to know me, just email, and maybe you can find out!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fair enough freedom42...I can understand that, but I think that most people fear peer pressure more and they shouldn't.

Posted by speakeasy (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, I enjoy your posts. Your patriotism has come into question on this comment section. However, I agree wholeheartedly with your assertions and have long known that when we fail to question, relent our right to protest, trade our curiosity for apathy, we are giving ourselves over to a government which becomes the servant of those in power and not the people.

These are just a few of Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the subject:
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
"A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

speakeasy...no one ever, ever asked EnKiKur to stop, we simply disagreed with him en mass...it was clear that he was in left field playing with the daisys, but he has a perfect right to do so.

Posted by freetospeak (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to know the opinion of anyone that would like to respond to something that I read today in the Miss-Lou Magazine dated May 14-27 on page 11. It stated: A new Mississippi law effective July 1 would force school districts to fire superintendents if the majority of their schools were rated Level 1 or Level 2 (underperforming) for two years. With the new law Natchez Adams School Superintendent Dr. Anthony Morris will lose his job if the local schools do not improve.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Sam) Hang in there-REMEMBER-survival of the fittest!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah...I was wondering that earlier...how would Darwin's theory square with EnKiKur?...LOL

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm still crossing fingers though, even on both hands!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He's probably still digesting what I said here...looking for more obscure out of touch jurisprudence or wondering what to say to my comments over on today's letter to the editor...hope it keeps him busy for a while.

Posted by Marc_Robson (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Marc Robson on that website has nothing to do with me. Obviously, there are other people in this world named "Marc Robson". However, congratulations on wasting your time sifting through websites that you googled with my name. I am flattered. Then again, when I think of how little your time is probably worth (I'd speculate that you make minimum wage, if you even have a job), I get a little disappointed. Come back and play with the big boys when you are making 7 figures, sucker.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He out getting intelligence from the PW Camp!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Both Marc Robsons are completely arrogant and irrelevant.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought that camp folded its tents...LOL

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure he'll appreciate seeing you.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope to be in Natchez on Wednesday to make up for Rotary and have lunch with Chick and drop a little green!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushinghjr...check out the time stamp on my reply to your comment below it...pretty cool, huh? I'm getting pretty good at this mind reading game...LOL.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are almost perfect! I read it three or four times, very hard to believe?

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was wierd...I read yours, typed mine and posted it and it came up before yours by one minute...ghost in the machine.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had better remind myself to say a prayer tonight for my angel to watch me closer! Be aware of the posters, they all sound alike, be on guard. Some heads are hard as concrete and unable to face the truth and reality?

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Marc_Robson (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace007: I will be sure to reformat my 1 terrabyte hard drive so that the authorities can't get anything incriminating when they seize my computer, which is more than likely better than yours, BTW. (3.45 GHZ liquid-cooled processor, 1 TB hard drive, 4 Gigs of RAM, and dual 24" monitors.)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Why did you say that to me? What's on my computer, Marc?

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't have a job, I'm very poor, and I may not live through the night, but I want to make sure you know Marc, that you aren't perfect. Have a good life.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Sam, I wish you would cite some of those individual cases where courts have upheld that the Constitution imposes some mutual obligation between the federal government and the people.

I will reread the Constitution before I finish this post.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Sam, I am correct. The Constitution only describes how the government shall be set up, it does not prescribe any penalties for it's violation. Rather than bind the people to itself, it binds the government:

Article 6
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The people are never bound, the binding is against the government.

In the case of impeachment, impeachment is only the removal from office, and that is no penalty as public office is public service. To be removed from obligation to serve is not a penalty; the Constitution does not protect an impeached party from further prosecution for crimes leading to impeachment:

Art. 2, sec. 4
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Art. 1, sec. 3
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

Even punishment for treason is left to the discretion of Congress, and even in the case of treason the Constitution describes protections for the treasonous individual:

Art. 3, sec. 3
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The people created the government, the government did not create the people. This is what puts the people above the government. The second amendment exists as the people's final most extreme protection against government tyranny. As George Washington said so well ""Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth." The Constitutors were pretty clear about who they considered soveriegn in this country, and it wasn't the government.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Sam, I am correct. The Constitution only describes how the government shall be set up, it does not prescribe any penalties for it's violation. Rather than bind the people to itself, it binds the government:

Article 6
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The people are never bound, the binding is against the government.

In the case of impeachment, impeachment is only the removal from office, and that is no penalty as public office is public service. To be removed from obligation to serve is not a penalty; the Constitution does not protect an impeached party from further prosecution for crimes leading to impeachment.

Art. 2, sec. 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Even punishment for treason is left to the discretion of Congress, and even in the case of treason the Constitution describes protections for the treasonous individual:

Art. 3, sec. 3
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The people created the government, the government did not create the people. This is what puts the people above the government. The second amendment exists as the people's final most extreme protection against government tyranny. As George Washington said so well ""Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth." The Constitutors were pretty clear about who they considered soveriegn in this country, and it wasn't the government.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 1:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If my patriotism is called into question I am in fine company because the original revolutionaries in this country also had their patriotism called into question by the other 98% of the population who feared not having the protection of the British Crown so did not wish to commit the treason of rebellion.

People, Democrats and Republicans alike, have come to see themselves as the same type of state wards subjects of the Crown were. This is not the spirit of America.

Why call into question the patriotism of someone who understands that his support of the Constitution is by choice, and not by force of law? Many of the people who came here from England because the Crown issued an edict that they had to swear allegiancen or make affirmation to the Crown; the Protestants newly freed from the control of the Catholic Church were angry at the Anglican Church when they began to read the Bible for themselves and see Christ's injunction against swearing oaths. These people were thrown into prison for believing that God's law was higher than the King's. The Constitution reflects what those people felt was best for man, with reverence for the order ordained by God.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the last paragraph of your argument, it was precisely because the Constitution puts the people above itself that the War Between the States who were parties to the Constitution occured.

One of the main points of contention during the constitutional convention was that formation of a federal government would precipitate war between the states, as the centralized power would set up a political machinery that would be prone to the control of northeastern financial interests who would want to exploit the south. And that is exactly what happened within a few decades.

Under the Articles of Confederation the interests of one state with regard to another state or group of states was protected through the recognition that if the latter wanted the commerce of the former, the latter would have to behave themselves in a civil fashion. Federalists argued that, among other things, having a central government would prevent one state from warring against another; perhaps this was the first federal program that achieved the opposite of its stated goal.

The southern states seized the federal forts occupying space in the seceded states only after politely requesting the federal government surrender the forts. Thus began the bloodiest war in American history, made possible because of the God given and Constitutionally protected right of the people of the Southern states to defend themselves against oppression. Unfortunately the Southern states lost their bid to regain state sovereignty and avoid the crushing effects of centralized political and banking power emanating from New York and the upper eastern seaboard.

Federal power was consolidated not because the Constitution gave the federal government a place above the people but because the intent of the Constitution to protect the rights reserved to the states and the people was not honored by the political machinery of northeastern exploiters. This dishonorable state of affairs continues to this day.

Posted by adamstanton (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

get a life

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One whose observations can be summed up in three words? I can't imagine it would be richer than the one I have now.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You wake up on the wrong side of bed, Adam?

Posted by tedhinson (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious EnKiKur, do you ever sleep?...lol

Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I, for one, would like to see the staff give us a real vBulletin forum for these fine discussions. It would allow us to keep threads going much longer. The ones here start getting good, and BAM, they are removed so that a new article can take up the valuable page space.

A copy of vBulletin cost $175 + an annual renewal fee so that you can continue to download updates. I have been using vBulletin for several years and I would be more than happy to help the Natchez Democrat staff install and set up the board.

Wilson Phillips

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isnt Wilson Phillips the name of that 90's band that sang "Hold On" and "Release Me":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Phil...

Why would they be so concerned about a vBulletin in Natchez?

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on May 13, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKiur--Your rendering of Constitutional history is more or less correct from an Antifederalist perspective, at least for the period prior to the Civil War. But with the ratification of the 14th and 15th amendments after the war, the federal government became the arbiter of the relationship between citizens and their state governments. In other words, the amendments (ratified by the states--though certainly under duress as the Southern states were compelled to ratify the amendments as a condition of being readmitted into the Union) made state power subordinate to federal power insofar as the rights and privileges of citizens are concerned. Of course, this does not mean that the federal government was particularly vigilant about protecting that relationship--witness 70 years of Jim Crow and the failure of Congress to pass a law making lynching illegal. But the letter and the intent of the 14th and 15th amendments make it clear that under the Constitution, federal power supercedes state power.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

obamayamama..."Now I know that there is pain, but ya hold on for one more day, break free from the chainsssss." I remember Wilson Phillips! They were made up of Beach Boys and Mamas n Papas chaps!

What's a vBulletin?

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

En has nothing else to do with his life other that view the "flowers" out in "left field"

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Tom.

The Fifteenth Amendment clarifies my point about voting being a right and not a privilege, for it says:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Fourteenth Amendment establishes federal occupation of all the states by populating them with an artificially created type of citizen, the federal citizen:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

This also created a new country, close reading of the amendment reveals that in the first instance the words United States refers to the union of the several states, and in the second instance United States refers to the federal occupation of the states whose boundared the federal government took claim to as its own.

Neither amendment repeals any of the first ten though, so the people, whether they considers themselves federal or state citizens, still retain sovereignty in light of law.

When the Representatives of seven southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861 the Congress as established by law adjourned without setting a day to reconvene, not having the necessary quorum as was understood by common usage of Roberts Rules of Order. From my point of view, Congress, to this day, has never lawfully reconvened and only did so by order of the President on April 15, 1861, all states not being represented.

This ordered meeting of Congress, in my view, signaled the beginning of the coming Dark Ages of American History. Subsequent to this the country of America became replaced by the corporatized United States, playground of lawyers and corporations masquerading as and claiming the same rights of real persons. America as a country ruled by law established by the people became a country tolerant of Jefferson's bad editions of Polish kings capable of doing such things as enforcing the institutionalizing of slavery with the 16th Amendment, turning the Treasury over to a private banking system, and stealing the gold of the people in an attempt to return them to the feudalism they escaped from only a hundred years before.

I regard the establishment of federal citizenry as being Constitutionally challengeable for reasons including the ones you mention.

Posted by rocketman (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nah, it's you alright. So smart that you stole some signals from Directv? What were you making then....7 figures? Sure you were!

Posted by rocketman (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In case anyone might be a bit confused, that remark was for Mark.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know about you rocketman, but I haven't been getting my monthly check from DirecTv for their failure to keep thier unwanted signal off my property. I feel I am owed whatever they charge for all packages they offer, plus punitive damages for disrupting the natural electromagnetic field on my property. If they don't hurry up and pay up I'm going to offer my case to a lawyer on 50/50 contingency.

Posted by texasranger (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blackwood You need help. They are people in Natchez that would kill you because you owe them 20 bucks for drugs.
Some would just kill you for the 20 bucks to get drugs.
Some would use their political influence to have you arrested or worse. Politicans are powerful people and so are friends of gangs. If you don,t think so i have a tape you need to watch called the Clinton chronicles. It,s frightening. I see more and more transients roaming the streets in Natchez. Also if you want to give your name,go for it. Then somebody,s inlaw,s might have you pulled over and arrested for something you didn,t do. Or worse.I once heard of a late sheriff of Adams county say They are some people i don,t arrest or fool with. That was the sheriff talking after years of experience. When you voice an opinion on here and step on the wrong toes,you might have bitten off more than you can chew,You just never know especially since most of us know everyone and are kin to half the county.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Texas,
I think the Sheriff you are referring to was Billy Ferrall.

In the last few years, one of the officers in Natchez was demoted to desk duty because he gave a DUI to someone politically connected. Years ago, the biggest drunk driver in all of Natchez was the judge that was over the traffic court. He was a full fledged drunk, but you never ever saw his name in the paper. Some of the cops back then actually would pull him over and drive him home to keep him out of the ditches and hollers'. Natchez is all about cliches' and always will be..That is another reason so many of us have left that place. Nothing changes, even when "New" leadership comes in after an election, everything remains the same. The same people still control the town and the Hysterical Society controls the construction Downtown....

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, i meant cliques not cliches....too much going on at one time.,......

Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

quote "What's a vBulletin?"

vBulletin is a software package that runs a bulletin board which handles discussions like this. It would be a very professional setup and would allow us to continue discussions like this however long the subject was "popular" or kept civil. It would also allow a thread that gets a little too heated to be closed without actually removing the whole discussion. Users could still come back later to see what was said.

Take a look at http://www.worldnewsforum.net/ to see an example of what the software looks like. The site itself can be customized to look anyway the owner wants and the options are limited basically by the imagination.

Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an added thought, there are also add-ons that would allow the site to maintain a photo gallery to keep those news photos permanently available to the readers.

Posted by Preacher (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a mess. Personal attacks have no place here. Is there any way we can simply comment on the article and not on the comments, or at least stay close to the subject? Good job Kevin.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on May 13, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur--I am admittedly ill-equipped to debate the finer points of Constitutional law with you. But it does seem to me that pretty early on Chief Justice Marshall issued a couple of rulings that clearly established the subordination of state power to federal authority--McCulloch v. Maryland being the clearest statement of federalist doctrine. To my reading of history, states rights have proven more disadvantageous and dangerous to the freedom of the individual and groups than federal power, and only federal intervention through the courts, or by arms, has protected those rights. Southern states in particular have a pretty sketchy record in this area--the South's strident insistence on states rights has largely been in service of keeping non-whites--Native Americans and African Americans--in servitude or at least politically and socially powerless. That is a lousy basis for the assertion that the freedom of the individual is best guaranteed by the states rather than the federal government.

Based on what I glean from your past contributions to these forums, what you really are most interested in is complete autonomy from any governmental or institutional authority--in short, the freedom to do whatever in the hell you want without any particular regard for the impact of your self-seeking actions on others in society who, presumably, would all be doing the same. I believe at best that is called anarchy, and nihilism in its most extreme form. It is not a basis for stable society, particularly one burdened by competition for dwindling energy, water, and arable land. For what it's worth, the framers of the Constitution--Federalists and Antifederalists--were for the most part products of the Enlightenment. As such, they believed in the ideal of the social compact, and the value of the virtuous citizen. None of them would have championed the ideology you embrace, at least as I interpret your writings.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tom...right on bro'...you said it so much more eloquently than I ever could...EnKiKure is an anarchist and I said so previously...he is contrarian to the point of being nihilistic.

I think that you seemed to be far better equipped than he to have a constitutional debate and he has already admitted that he isn't very well schooled in history or civics.

Maybe, just maybe, he'll quit writing so much (confusing people who are even less well educated than he is) and pick up a book on the Constitution that isn't written by a left wing ACLU wacko or a book on good old American civics...could he possibly learn something from all of this...nah, too much to hope for.

Until then the daisies beckon in left field...LOL.

Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on May 13, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam--I enjoy EnKiKur's contributions, though I don't necessarily agree with them. Most importantly, I have learned things I didn't know from reading his stuff. Is his point of view at the far end of the spectrum--possibly. Is he in left field--definitely not.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops, that should be "daisies"...EnKiKur would be all over me for that...LOL.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Idefinitelymight...I too enjoy reading some of it, but it's so over the top and there's too much of it...he won't listen and saturates the blog with his "research"...if he is "possibly" at the far end of the spectrum, then how do you define left field? My opinion is that he knows where the daisys are.

Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

texasranger, Thank you for the advice. Yes, I am kin to half the county. And my marriage makes me kin to the other half. I'm not sure where you are leading with the comments about the sheriff department, but thats out of my concern since I'm not really keen on the use of 911 and I tend to lean on the side of self sufficiency. As far as people posting with their names, I think it leads to self restraint. I'm restrained in my speach with people that I talk to face to face every day. By posting with my name, I also tend to use restraint. Posting with my anonymous name leaves me the ability to post with no limitations except for Kevin's finger of delete. But thats how folks want to play it here, so be it.

Marc Blackwood

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said Marc

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam. debate is just debate, an exploration of differing points of view. Much of the trouble in the world is due to people seeking to convert others to another point of view, by force if necessary. Since you have yielded the field in this particular debate, I claim victory and ask that you yield your American flag lapel pin to me as a symbol of my victory; I will pass it along to Obama whom I predict willl shortly be looking for one to sport for the coming centrist shift in his campaign as election day approaches.

I attribute your loss in this chapter of the Ellerbe-Mohon debates to your indiscriminate habits in reading and your sloppy application of logic. For instance, I didn't say I wasn't well schooled in history or civics, I said my attempts to understand American history were hindered by the shift in NASD from teaching history to sociall studies. I make up the deficiency on my own. An example of your sloppy application of logic is the insistence that the Consititution is a contract binding on the people, and your defense of the federal government. Government is created to serve the needs of the people. People have the power to dissolve what they create. This puts people forever above government. Your chain of logic specifically regarding the Constitution is sloppy as well. The Constitution created the Congress for service of the people. The Constitution guaranteed each state a Republican form of government. Congress, the creation of the Constitution, then created a seperate state in each state, the Federal State, while the Constitution says that only the states themelves can create another state within their own boundaries. The federal state cannot be a Republican form of government because Republican means of, by and for the people. The federal state is of, by, and for Congress. This put Congress, the creation, above the Constitution, the creator. It is not logical that the thing created can be above its creator.

Tom, I do believe I should have the right to do whatever the hell I want so long as I don't trample the rights of others. I am a strong believer in the proposition that my rights end where the next person's begin. I believe you are intelligent enough to realize that the writers of the Constitution recognized that the people are above the government. Otherwise they would not have created a Republic, but some other form of government that makes the people subjects and not sovereign.

Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the info, Pro. Yes, we could definitely use that program on the Democrat. It makes good sense. Kevin could chock it full o' ads and actually make money on the deal, I guess. Marketing isn't my forte but I would assume it to be true.

Marc...you're not keen on the 911 system? I realize it has its faults but I've known it to save a life or two.

I enjoy EnKi's comments, as well, regardless if I agree or not. So what if he/she does mucho research? Like they say, "The more you know...". If you don't toot your own horn, then your horn may not be tooted!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good Points Mr. Blackwood!

Posted by steve_o (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I, also enjoy reading EnKiKur posts. They do not seem to be random thoughts from a foolish one, but thoughts from one who tries to explain his point of view with facts, be them long or short.
I have yet to see him comment about anyone taking up time to find "mundane" cases, left field w/daisies, etc., he just states his position as he sees it!

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Ellerbe...the point we differ on is clear...WE the people create, change and own the government. The people, by doing so, also subject themselves to the laws that the government they create, makes...point being, that the people are not above the government, but rather, they ARE the government.

It looks like you're making much ado about very little difference on that point just to flout your personal gnosis, agenda and arrogant view that you are above the rest of us regular citizens.

I could, but choose not to, engage you further, in order not to subject those here to additional long dissertations and harangues on issues you choose to conflate into the debate that are irrelevant.

Claim what you want (wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which hand fills up fastest), you didn't win anything...I think if you look back on the other comments you'll find that indeed you were, are and will remain in the minority...with good reason.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One more point EnKiKur...your last two sentences give testament to your fundamental misunderstanding of the the Constitution and the federal government...the founding fathers gave us a representative democracy and not a full democracy, knowing that a full democracy would lead to chaos and anarchy if every man felt himself to be "above" the government and not a part of it...it makes us regular citizens both sovereign over and duplicit with the government...the duality makes us Americans, unlike some who think they are better and the law doesn't apply to them.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We don't differ on that point at all Sam. I believe I pointed out to you one or two times earlier that we were aligned though you could not see it. I perfectly agree that we do create, change, and own the government. Power to do so resides with the people and is protected by the Constitution, and the power to un-create the government also resides with the people and the tools of that power are enumerated in the first ten amendments.

I am not anti-government, I am anti-bullying. Shifts in the perception of the Constitution, as pointed out by Tom, have created a power monopoly in this country that allows for a great deal of bullying of the people.

This perceptual shift in Constitutional intent has been made possible in part by public education no longer focusing on the ideology, structure, and function of our government but focusing instead those Amendments which have been used to normalize a collectivist mindset in the students. Hence my reference to my experience in NASD. Mrs. Cowan, who drove pink Edsel and was also in the minority, endeavored to make sure that her students at Margaret Martin understood the principle of sovereignty ownerhsip as it was held by the founders of our country. She also was the only teacher in my entire twelve years of public schooling who showed us the Communist Manifesto and explained to us how that ideology is at odd with personal liberty.

It is not important to me to be in the majority. Being in the majority makes one a group participant and the group mind is far more subject to manipulation than the individual mind. Group thinkers are motivated by need for group approval, so successfully splitting people up into groups creates a powerful political mechanism for change harmful to the individuals who make up the group. Individualism creates personal bulkheads against misuse of power.

You chose to challenge me in debate. I enjoy debating and do so without the aim of converting. Words used in debate are important, similar words are not interchangeable; this loose use of language is used often in politics to lead people to believe they are being told one thing when in fact they are being told another. Specific communication takes the time and space that it takes. Clarity is not possible without specific communication.

I am sorry if our debate causes you rancor and I have no need to win. If you concede that I am have made some valid points, then I will abrogate my claim to your flag lapel pin by right of conquest; short of that I point out to you that surrender is always by choice, and surrender is the very acknowledgement of defeat.

Posted by steve_o (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It looks like you're making much ado about very little difference on that point just to flout your personal gnosis, agenda and arrogant view that you are above the rest of us regular citizens"

In layman's terms, LET'S GET IT ON! Show some rebuttal to his comments.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 3:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As always, Tom, your comments are thought provoking. If there is one area where I am for government intervention it is in the arena of banking.

It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court, by unanimous decision voted to block regulation of the corrupt Second Bank of the United States by the State of Maryland, and that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by the people through the election of Andrew Jackson. The Court's decision subjected the people to more years of hardship under the profit seeking whim of the Second Bank, but justice did finally prevail through action of the people.

While it was a very broad interpretation to find that Congress had the right to entrust control of the nation's money to a private bank, the narrow interpretation that States are bound by the Constitution and by Congress acting in accord with the powers granted by the Constitution seems correct to me. On the whole though, Marshall has subjected the people to much hardship through his adherence to letter and not to intent, and likely his decisions will continue to be overturned by the people.

Of course, the Constitution is only binding on participating parties, and no where in the agreement is it stated that a State must forever remain a party to the Union.

I do not understand the reasoning that claims a Federal government of the people is more fair than a State government of the people. Both are supposedly representative of the people. The line of reasoning that Federal government is more fair derives from what? Does that line of reasoning extend to the conclusion that most fair government of all would be global government?

I don't hold with your contention about the Southern states being especially onerous in the matter of laws made against non-whites. Massachussetts was the last state I heard of resisting bussing. The attitude of Southern states, regrettable as it was, was backlash against punitive Reconstruction efforts that went far beyond the necessary, and that had their roots not in race or geographic location but in greed. Use of force begets forceful resistance.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 3:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I also don't hold with your sense of emergency over dwindling resourses. Only five percent of the US is developed, with about half that being urban development and about half being rural development. The earth is three quarters water and the amount of water on the earth is constant. There is also plenty of energy available in the forms we are now using; technology will find new sources and new forms and devise ways to more efficiently use both what we have now and will develop. Population growth rates in developed nations tend to decline, not to increase. Things just look worse than they are because people are clustered in areas that strain local resources. Perhaps some new type of development is needed that doesn't clump people together in small spaces.

Poltical anarchy is not a state of chaos, in the poltical sense anarchy is just absence of government endowed with the authority to use force. Churchill Ms. is a good example of political anarachy. There is no local government there but the people live in harmony across wealth and racial divides because they want to, not because they are forced to.

I am not an anarchist though. Government is useful in providing some things people in common need to conduct their lives. However, people who gain positions of power over others often tend to exercise that power when they would not if on an equal footing with those they have power over. For that reason I am for the smallest possible government. Government maintains order through the use of force. Only a very small percentage of the people disrupt order, and that is because the majority of the people, like the people of Churchill, choose to, not because they are forced to.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, thank you. I can now see where my mind was beginning to go stale from thinking only of day to day survival. Reading your posts, as well as sammohon's has made me start thinking again and it is a good feeling. Everyone should be aware of our political systems and where they came from and where they are leading, in order to choose more wisely which direction we want to go. I have wondered for a long time about the dwindling resources when I know that so much of the world remains untouched. I read somewhere that you could fit the whole population of the U.S. into the state of Texas and everyone would still have 6 sq. ft. of personal living space. That leaves a lot of room to expand. And it kills me when people talk about conserving water, when the water cycle remains constant. Admittedly the rain doesn't always fall when and where it should, but alternate ways of getting the water where it is needed should be developed. People seem willing to wait around and let the "government" do it. Witness NO after Katrina. We (my family) is trying to be as self-sufficient as possible, and trying harder every day to get there. I would suggest everyone consider learning to survive on their own.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur...amazingly I don't think I disagreed with you at all in any of your previous four posts, except for the part about me surrendering...good try though...LOL.

freedom42...glad we, EnKiKur, Tom and I, could foster some thought through these blogs. I appreciate your saying so and hope you chime in.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay Sam, cease fire declared then. Your lapel pin probably suits you better than it would Obama anyway.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur...Until next time then, huh?...LOL

Kevin why don't you just shift this column over to the blog section and let it keep going.