Are the readers this poorly versed in Contitutional history that they lack even basic knowledge that should have been mastered in High School civics?

"Xanthro, thanks for all the research. quite helpful. And in fact those 'penumbras' are pretty questionable, one could even say 'shady'"

If we skipped civics perhaps we should at least learn to Google.

Article 1 Section II

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

Article 2 Section I

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

So, yes you have the Constitutional Right to vote for Representatives, but you do not for President. The State legislature can chose how the Electors are selected.

Law upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Reese.

The reason why amendments address the issue of voting is because the Constitutional right to vote has been expanded, from only white males, to all males, to all adults, to all persons 18 or older.

>How do you know you don't have an inferior ability in your field? People are notoriously poor at assessing their own skills, and this has nothing to do with gender or sex.<

Gee, Xanthro, maybe the fact she graduated with good grades in her field? Or do you think her teachers and professors passed her in spite of her competence? Maybe she's done well at other, difficult jobs--unless you figure she just imagined all that and people were humoring her?

-----------------------------------------------

Seriously, I've worked with a great number of people who did very well in school, and they thought very highly of themselves, and they hadn't a clue as to their actual job.

Why do you think that if her peers look down on her work that it might not be an actual reflection on her work?

Normally, if your peers in your chosen academic career think little of your work, it's because your work is sub-par, not because your peers have something against you based on your gender.

'Now you don't love me anymore.'

Sad, that his own mother would think his love would disappear because she was Jewish, that says more about George Allen position on this issue than anything else.

If you own Jewish mother fears you are a Jew-Hater, then pretty much you are a Jew Hater.

Seriously, most of the people posting in this thread act as if the closest he or she has been to a non domesticated animial is in a book or at the zoo.

If you don't like foie gras don't eat it, but stop acting the fool an taking a position that it's none of anyone elses concern if a women has an abortion, but then take the stance that you need to determine what other people eat.

The reason why foie gras works is because ducks, geese, and most migrating birds store energy in their livers for their migration. The naturally stuff themselves with food and their livers naturally swell in size.

Honestly, you have someone posting that you could cook a peacock and it would be alive. How does one respond to that? It's like if someone claimed the moon was actually cheese. It's so far removed from reality that there is no common ground. One would think that simple biological knowledege would lead one to conclude that cooked birds are not alive, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

As to those who have gone 30 years without eating foie gras or that we don't have to eat it, we could all live on oatmeal and supplements, but we don't. Why, because we eat food that we find tasty, and foie gras is tasty.

You may or may not find it so, but that doesn't matter, because it's not your choice, and those trying to force their beliefs in food choices down the throats of others are no better than the crazy religious whackos who try to force their personal decisions on others.

"but what does that have to do with how repugnant foie gras is, and what it represents, to a majority of the people, who these legislators are supposed to represent?"

Let's examine the tone of the above post. It quite simply says that if the majority of people find foie gras offensive that the legislators who represent the people should ban it.

What line does this majority opinion dominance stop at? Can we ban foie gras but not ban homosexuality or the practice of Judaism?

I can guarantee you that in States like Texas a far greater majority of people would support a ban on homosexuality over a ban on foie gras. If the latter is acceptable, then so is the former, and so would be the concept of Judenfrei.

A majority people able to enforce it's will on the minority is no more acceptable than if a King doing the same. It's tyranny, plain and simple.