Worriedman

I suppose he is willing then, to directly give the responsibility of the safety and security of the students and any visitors to those campuses to the board members, of which he is the Chair of UT, he has enough money for a couple of the law suits about to come out of MTSU. Think he would be willing to share the fiscal responsibility?

You nailed it!

Scott Conger, District 5 City Council Candidate will be the featured speaker for this evening's meeting. As usual we will gather at the Old Country Store located in the Casey Jones Village. 56 Casey Jones Ln # A Jackson, TN 38305 (731) 668-1223 We are changing our normal time frame to accommodate a schedule conflict for Mr. Conger, the presentation portion of the meeting will begin at 6:00 P.M. instead of the usual 7:00 P.M. format. Our meal will follow the speaker's presentation and Q/A session. Membership is not required to attend, all are welcome.

As there is no original edict in the Constitution of the Union regarding "Voting Rights", the limitations and prescriptions were left to the States per the 10th Amendment map of Powers. But, you might check the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments for Federal involvement in the question.

A perspective from a different group of Educators. 2/28/2011 - Debating Tenure Reform - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com

Hence the first blush statement. I realize it not a proven regiment yet, but the premise is interesting.

Mile Out of Memphis-Carl Perkins

This appears at first blush to be VERY promising, should be a real boon for our soldiers and any other persons with burns.

I agree 100% with this statement, but, until the Government does recognize them, I for one am glad we have at least some of the basics penned in perpetuity, it will take them longer to breach and destroy them.

I agree with your statement, mostly. The Federal Constitution IS a list of restrictions placed on the Government. The Bill of Rights being the first 10 Amendments, at least the first 10 that all the States would ratify, they proposed 12 originally, but only 10 were accepted. The Constitution as written just did not put enough "chains" on the Federal Government, Hamilton and his group did not want to list ANY expressed Rights, as they did not want to have to list ALL. Simple sloth, or a hidden agenda to retain control in the hands of a "Ruling Elite"? Jefferson came to the realization that SOME Rights needed to be forever protected, "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

Hamilton was a "Big Government" proponent. Even Jefferson at first was opposed to a "Bill of Rights", Madison as well, both supposing that the founders intent of "Natural" Rights would stand inviolate forever. Had it not been for George Mason and Patrick Henry, we might be the death of one Conservative Supreme Court Justice away from losing all "Rights", more especially those related to firearms, were it not for those who insisted on including some specific Rights written against the intentions of powerful men who want things a certain way, then or now. In retort to Hamilton's views, Henry said: "Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? (The Constitution sans any amendments) Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!"

I can only hope that since this compilation of changes was put forward by the Speaker Pro Tempore of the House, that it was not a rash endeavor, but a well thought out, calculated decision on the part of the Leadership to address several important issues. The makeup of the House is different than in past years, alliances that were in force no longer exist, and it could be that with so many new members, it reduces the institutionalized pressures from old power brokers, or so one would hope. We will see.

From the NRA ILA alert: NRA-ILA :: Tennessee: Comprehensive Pro-Gun Reform Bill Introduced in the Legislature

Senator Ketron sponsored the companion Bill, SB 1768.

Companion Bill in the Senate?

Miller accented to the "right" of individuals to own firearms suitable for use in the militia, did it not?

Sen. Tim Barnes (Clarksville area) has offered a companion Bill in that Chamber, SB1053. It has made it to the show, now we will see what happens.

I heard it put a different way tonight. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that enjoys the "shall not be infringed" language for a Citizen. All others, "Life, Liberty and Property can be taken, Life if one commits and infamous crime, Liberty if a crime of lessor magnitude is committed, and the perpetrator loses their citizenship (along with all other rights, including those expressed in the 2nd Amendment) and Property, through eminent domain. Granted they must be taken by "due process", but, that process is allowed and stated in the Constitution.

Both initiatives have just until Thursday to get a House sponsor or they are dead. As of this writing, there is nothing on the Tennessee Legislature web site showing one for either.

He also said:

In response you said: Earlier in the thread you said: DRM can not limit clown suits at his business, but strickj can limit red and purple polka-dotted socks?

Perhaps then you can help me. It is my understanding that "property rights" are protected by "common law". I have attempted to read and understand the flow of the Constitutions, both that of the Union and the State, and am having difficulty finding any mention of "property rights" other than an ascertation that no one shall be denied them except by due process of law in those documents. It has been supposed elsewhere on this board that "enjoyment of property rights" trump every other power of Government by their inclusion in "unalienable rights". The Supreme Court said in the Slaughterhouse ruling (Justice Field) that "Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. These are the fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law, and which can only be interfered with, or the enjoyment of which can only be modified, by lawful regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good of all; and these rights, I contend, belong to the citizens of every free government." Which do you understand to be the arbiter of instances where the property rights of one contend with laws instituted by a Legislature, the individual property owner, or the Law?

Not everyone who is a worker in Tennessee is an at-will employee. If you have a contract in Tennessee, and if the terms of that contract set aside the at-will provision, that statement is not true. Most of the workers at my firm are at-will employees, I however have a contract that mitigates the at-will provisions. It is unlawful to terminate a worker because of their gender, age, race, national origin or religious affiliation, even in an at-will employment situation. You can not violate an employee's civil rights in termination. Collective bargaining agreements, (of which there are some in the State, teachers for one group, most Federal workers for another) also mitigate the at-will status. Now, if the State Legislature removes the ability of business to post against HCP holders keeping their legal weapons in their personal vehicles in business parking lots, your belief will be the moot thing, as they have the power by law to do so, regardless of what you think.

Because it is up to the States to either chose to regulate the carrying of arms or not. It is not a power that is given to the Federal Government, even thought they attempt to take it. The 2nd Amendment restrains the Federal Gov. from intruding into the powers given the States, and states the right of the People to keep and bear arms. The 10th Amendment sums it up nicely, any power not given the Federal Government by the States, are reserved to the States, or the People. It was intended that the Federal Government serve the People, not rule them.

Pretty sure I do, and it speaks to forcing the Government to not infringe the Right of the People to be well supplied with weapons and munitions to overthrow that same Government should it become necessary, and to practice with them to remain ready for the day the need might arise. Or do you disagree with that as well?