I've actually tried to follow this principle, and I must agree that for the first few years I did get walked all over. I knew it, even if my wife didn't. What has been amazing to see is her turn around. We now work on putting each other first in our marriage. We work together because of this, and it strengthens every aspect of our marriage. For those nay-say individuals out there, our sex life has increased over the years and is more frequent now than it ever has been.

And if we are still in our honeymoon phase, then I hope the next 13 years are as good as the last 13 years have been.

That said, it isn't easy. Anyone telling you something different is lying to you. There are difficult times; there are times when you may feel helpless, but these are fleeting, and if you can endure those well, your marriage and your love for one another will certainly grow and mature. Work through the difficult times together, focus on each other, and have a clear goal, a long term goal, that you both want to achieve. This will give you both a sense of purpose as you walk down the path of your marital experience together.

As we are discussing a US state, I'll use US documents.

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -US Declaration of Independence

Or even more to the point,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -US Constitution Preamble

On form of government, Article 4 Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." Note this has nothing to do with parties, but with the representative form of government. It also outlines the role of the government.

I didn't read anywhere in these documents where it said the directing of the behavior of citizens was the primary role of government. In fact, I read that keeping the peace is the primary role and the laws and ordinances passed are to be designed to keep the peace.

The Constitution states explicitly what the government can do, all other actions would be considered prohibited. There were some areas where states had reservations that the government would actually self-limit so they set explicit "Shalt-not" scenarios in the Bill of Rights, but in truth the government should be limited to what is listed within the constitution.

I don't know how the NY constitution reads since I don't live in that state, but I would imagine it has many similarities to the US constitution.

So the FDA will regulate stem cells naturally occurring within a human body? Does this mean that the gestational period will be regulated to 20 years from the natural 9 months that it is today?

Can we get beyond some of the nonsense and move toward making things better for mankind? Please?

More creative than you or more dishonest than you? :)

No, that's not enough...you have to include the other 13 that are behind the bill too.

So would that mean if you wanted to commit a crime, you would want to admit to it since if the 5th amendment applied they would not be able to use your blog as evidence against you? Or are you speaking of abolishing these amendments as a part of a bill?

On a serious note, in order for it to be repealed within the judicial system it would need to be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court either directly (by the court itself) or indirectly (denial of appeal to the court).

I think you have a very good point in this statement. It is precisely how the power grid is designed. We do not receive our power from a single sub-station. Re-routing of power is something that is commonly performed which is what helps it be so stable.

After reading much of Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson I have come to the same conclusion as you. The Wikipedia article actually goes through one aspect that, yes, the founders did want to avoid. This is only one aspect, however and is why we were originally set up as a republic and not a democracy, which is what we have been slowly turning into.

The constitution was set up to be a limiting power of the federal government which concept seems to have been turned on its ear over the course of a long period of time. The bill of rights was also originally intended to be a further limitation on government regardless of how those sent to represent us decide to look at it.

How often do you hear the phrase "The constitution is out of date" from one side or the other? I hear it from both sides of the isle, so it isn't a D vs. R thing. If there is something they don't like, they blatantly ignore what is written in their guiding document. How many of the amendments (post bill-of-rights) actually erase parts of the constitution?

How often do election campaigns border on being unconstitutional as the fear card is played on religion where the constitution states in Article 6, "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." Yet we hear things like, "He is a Jew" (Lieberman), "He is a born-again nut job" (Bush Jr.), "He was a Muslim" (Obama).

I'll finish my rant now with just the thought that we are all in this together and until we come together we will be a house divided against itself, and we will not stand.

You are seeing the intent of the electoral cycle, not the intent of the Federal system. However, on a 2 year basis, the electoral cycle (for the House and 1/3 of the Senate) turns into "Tyranny of the masses" as you state because the masses refuse to become educated regarding those that would represent them. They listen to appeasing, yet empty, promises and vote on those without knowing the history or character of those they are voting for.

Don't believe me? Look at all of the clowns that are in Washington and ask yourself honestly which of all of them are for the people of the USA. It is very few when speaking of the congress as a whole and it has been that way for many decades.

May I take a minute to plead for us to consider that we want what's best for the planet? I personally would love to stop pollution as much as is possible (without moving back to horse and buggy time periods). This, however, has nothing to do with my views of global warming. I work very hard to try and limit the pollution I produce on a regular basis and have as many discussions as I can with those around me about treating the world around them well.

This being said, I don't hold to the belief of CO2 emissions being pollutants as that would make the existence of all non-plant life on this planet a drag on it, rather than an ecologically complete system.

My biggest concern is that if what you say is true and you just want to work on reducing pollution as I do then wonderful, let's talk about that on its own merits and not try to hide it in something as politically charged as global warming.

Now go ahead and mark me as troll.

To further the discussion a little, with the internet being as pervasive as it is in our society it could be possible that someone was accessing this content at the school thereby bringing the comments to the campus of the school.

Even with this potential I do not believe that it should be within the jurisdiction of the school district to punish the offending party within their rules if the content was not created there, but it does provide an argument that it could be stated "on school premises".

I personally believe that the school district, and the offended party in particular should have the capability to pursue statutory damages if this is something that is truly libelous or damaging to the career of the educator. This does not, however, include the act that was taken by the school district in my opinion.