-=> Quoting Charles Testerman to Doug Carter <=-
 
 PMFJI
 CT> The constitution here is meant to limit government. In closing I would
 
 You seem to have the same misconception of the powers of the _federal_
 Constitution as Charles Murray. As far as I know, MOST "licensing" is done
 at a _state_ level NOT a _federal_ level so the U.S. Constiution has little
 or no validity in a "licensing" argument. Period.
 CT> If we license or regualte an activity, we are dening people their
 CT> private property rights.
 See my paragraph above. And, as Doug pointed out, you can own an automobile
 without licensing it and you can operate it on your own property without a
 license. It's when you do either on roads that I have paid for with MY tax
 dollars that you are impinging on MY personal rights to require licenses to
 drive on MY roads. What makes YOUR personal rights any more "right" than MY
 personal rights? 
 CT> Here again don't believe me, read the U.S.
 CT> Constitution word for word... and then look at the way things are
 CT> done, and compare the two. Do our actions match the supreme law of the
 CT> land?
 
 Yes. Here. I'll quote it for you.
 quote mode on
 "Amendement X. 
  
 Rights of States under Constitution. 
 
 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
 prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or
 to its people."
 quote mode off
 
 Therefore, IF there is nothing in the federal constitution _one way or the
 other_ (not "delegated by the Constitution" or "prohibited by it") about
 licenses (vehicle, driving, doctors, airplane pilots, etc.), the States are
 free to put those into place. 
 CT> The government has oppressed its citizenry many times in the past and
 CT> violated the constitution...
 Actually, it wasn't the government doing the oppressing in many cases. It 
as
 other citizens with the support of the government.
 CT> Just ask the citizens of Japanese ancestry what happened during World
 CT> War II,
 In some cases, the government was requested to act in the manner they did by
 citizens of the United States in a clearly virtually undisguised effort to
 secure the personal property of Japanese-Americans. Those people had the
 idea that they had a "personal right" to the Japanese-American's property
 simply because they felt they were "superior" to the Japanese. (Actually,
 they called them other names, but I won't repeat them here.)  
 (I presume you are talking about the incarceration of Japanese-Americans
 along the West Coast during World War II. BTW... How much Pacific Northwest
 history have you read? If it is substantial you will know that there were
 very strong anti-Japanese American sentiments both BEFORE and AFTER the war.
 Have you read about the town in Oregon that had the names of
 Japanese-American war heroes _removed_ from the town war memorial?)
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------